Eco-Blog

The Merits of NESEA's BuildingEnergy

Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:33:56 -0400

As we near the end of 2010, budgeting for 2011 is in full swing. Although I plan to skip several of the trade shows and conferences I have regularly attended for years, there is one event I refuse to miss: BuildingEnergy, which is hosted by the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association.

I attended my first BuildingEnergy, or BE, conference in 2008 and was completely blown away by the content and enthusiasm of attendees and presenters. By that time, I had been working in the green-building industry for five years as editor of a nationally circulated green-building magazine and had only met fragmented groups of people discussing the issues that were the main focus of BE’s program. NESEA’s members are passionate about building smarter buildings, being accountable for their work and wiping out greenwashing. I immediately was a fan of NESEA and began telling everyone I knew about BE’s merits.

In 2009 and this year (BE is held annually in March in Boston), I attended the opening Public Forum and both days of the conference and took copious notes during every session, keynote, presentation and networking event I attended. I’d like to share a few words of wisdom I heard at this year’s BE that have inspired me to keep forging ahead to improve our nation’s buildings:

“Treat the future like we do death; just prepare the best you can.” –Author Sharon Astyk during the Public Forum, Case Studies of the Way Forward: Creative Solutions to Global Crises

“We are meant to be connected. Our community has been taken from us, and we’ve been told we can do everything alone.” –Transition Towns Activist Tina Clarke during the Public Forum

“Offshore oil drilling will not make a big difference, nor will ethanol.” –Dr. Samuel Baldwin, chief technology officer and member of the board of directors Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, keynote address during the Opening Plenary

“’Scorekeeping’ is the first step but then you need to figure out what a winning score is. This helps you get your clients somewhere important. Run the numbers and show that they’re here and open the conversation to getting there.” –Paul Eldenkamp of Byggmeister Inc. during Counting, Measuring, Reporting: What’s Important?

“I did a show and tell at my son’s school and explained to the kids that old doesn’t mean throw away.” –John Seekircher during Upgrading Windows in Historic and Non-Historic Buildings

“Spiders are indicators of airflow; they build webs where there’s wind, so they can easily go for food. Go up into the plenum above the ceiling; you shouldn’t see light at the roof-to-wall connection.” –Larry Harmon of Air Barrier Solutions LLC during What’s Up with the Gaps, Cracks and Holes?

“One calculation to figure out dewpoint is dumb because that doesn’t figure how the wall acts during the entire year.” –Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corp. during How to: Vapor Barriers, Insulating Sheathing and Drying Potential

“In a conventional wall, 25 percent of the wall is framing, which kills us on insulation. Eliminate wood and add more insulation.” –Chet Pascho of Preferred Building Systems during Alternative Framing Systems: Advanced Framing, Prefab, Modular

Would you like to read more? Larry Harmon wrote “Simple Steps,” which you can read on Eco-Logic. The article compares your home to a child in winter and goes through a systematic approach to keep it warm. As you can see from this article, much of what NESEA’s members speak and write about can be adopted throughout the country. I hope to provide more articles from NESEA’s members and BE’s presenters on Eco-Logic, so you can tap into their collective genius.

To get even more BE content, I highly recommend you attend BE11 at the Seaport World Trade Center, Boston, March 8-10, 2011. The planning committee has been in full swing for months, thinking about how to keep the conference informative and considering how the current world should affect the way NESEA’s members and BE’s conference attendees think as they take their businesses into an uncertain future.

EPA Goes Mobile

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:33:57 -0400

“Have you ever wondered…?” was a beginning line for Andy Rooney’s monologue on “60 Minutes”. But have you ever wondered what the UV index was while out in the sun? I have often asked myself that exact question during my weekend tennis activities. I can be a bit lazy when it comes to sun protection but when I know the UV index is high (6 or above), I just do it.

How can you find the UV index while you’re stretching at the tennis courts? EPA’s mobile Web site! Yes, I said MOBILE. The Web site has actually been around for a while and can be accessed from your mobile device. If you think that’s great—and I’m sure you do—I’m here to tell you that EPA is completing its modernization of the mobile Web site, which will soon be available at the above URL. For now, check out our prototype. (Feedback is always welcome.)

The mobile Web site provides the latest environmental news releases, videos of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on YouTube and even photos posted on Flickr. The Web site Apps menu includes links to “My Right to Know” and “Learn about your environment.” The latter includes information about the UV index, air data, Energy Star rebates and My Environment.

Another useful item is the Contact link at the bottom of the menu. It provides clickable phone numbers for an environmental emergency or any other threats to public health. For those of us who haven’t included the phone number of everyone we know working at the EPA, there’s an Employee Directory under the Contact link, as well. I find that very useful.

I almost forgot to mention two of the most popular Web sites among mobile users: Facebook and Twitter. The new mobile Web site’s “Connect” page has links to EPA on Facebook and Twitter in the mobile format. Users can follow Administrator Jackson on Twitter or stay connected with environmental issues and events on EPA Facebook. Visitors to the “Connect” page can also join the Greenversations on EPA’s blog, where guest writers blog about current environmental issues, or they can just browse the “Environmental Tips” page to get information about how to conserve energy and other action-oriented tips.

As you can tell, I’m really excited about the new Web site and all the mobile content that’s available to you. Our team has worked hard to redesign EPA’s mobile Web site and we welcome your feedback. So, if you haven’t turned on your mobile device and browsed to the new prototype while reading this blog, now’s the time. And don’t forget the sunblock!

Brett Graham is an IT Specialist and has been working at EPA since 2000. He’s located at the Office of Environmental Information’s National Computer Center in RTP, NC and is currently on detail to OEI’s Information Access Division.

This blog first appeared in EPA’s Greenversations.

National Drug Take-Back Day

Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:21:15 -0400

I remember when I was a teenager and I would regularly go through the medicine cabinet checking the expiration dates of medications. Because my father was a physician, he would often get samples from pharmaceutical companies promoting their wares. With time, these samples piled up and ended up in the trash unused. I thought nothing of it back then.

Several decades later we have seen several reports about the presence of pharmaceuticals in water and the potential risks to human health and aquatic life. EPA and its federal partners are taking steps to address the issue regarding public education and proper disposal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water. However, have you stopped to think what you can do at home?

Well, for starters, there is going to be a National Drug Take-Back Day at a location near you on September 25th. The main objective is to allow individuals to drop off their excess prescription and over-the-counter medications at select collection centers for proper disposal. The benefits will be threefold. First, by removing these unused medications in your home, you’ll prevent unintentional poisoning of children, the elderly and pets. Secondly, by participating in this “take-back” event, you’ll avoid having these drugs from contaminating our environment. Thirdly, you’ll also prevent prescription drugs from falling into the wrong hands. In essence, it’s a win-win throughout: protecting public health and safety, taking care of the environment and cleaning out your medicine cabinet all for a good cause. After the event, the medications will be disposed of properly with minimum impact on the environment. Please visit this Web site and plug in your ZIP code to find a collection site near you. It’s that simple.

Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force.

This blog first appeared in Greenversations: The Official Blog of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

From Design to Performance: Completing the Cycle with ENERGY STAR

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:21:54 -0400

In 1995, the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR for Buildings was launched to help businesses improve their energy performance and increase the bottom line while reducing fossil-fuel energy use to prevent carbon-dioxide emissions. Nine years later, Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR was created to help architects and engineers make informed decisions about energy efficiency throughout the design process and be recognized for achieving an energy-efficient design. The objective of this initiative was to guide the process by setting energy targets early. Target metrics are based on measured performance of similar existing commercial buildings and take into account the physical characteristics of buildings, idiosyncratic nature of occupant behavior and effects on energy consumption when those factors interact. As design teams address the aesthetic, materials and functional aspects of the building, the target helps architects understand whether their design is approaching the desired energy goal. The target is what the design is measured against later in the process. An EPA energy-performance rating (score) indicates how well the estimated energy use of the design compares to that of a similar space type—schools are compared to schools, offices to offices, and so on. The score also indicates whether the estimated energy use for the design achieves the desired target.

There is no crystal ball that predicts performance, and the design score may not turn out to be the same score that the operating building eventually receives. Instead, through Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR, EPA helps architects and engineers focus on the drivers that affect energy use in commercial buildings. These include evaluating the building envelope, orientation on the site, use of materials appropriate for bioclimatic conditions and the building program, occupant comfort and equipment needs.

As the project progresses through construction, things can change. Value engineering caused by unforeseen budget constraints, change-order requests, or the inability to obtain specified products—these and other changes will affect the energy profile of the building. Thus, evaluating energy use is a continual process requiring constant checking and recalibrating to get it right. As design parameters change, so does the EPA energy score.

Moving from design to operations is a critical stage in the new building’s life cycle. The first year of operation is a difficult time for the operations and maintenance personnel, yet most architects have moved on to other projects by that point. ENERGY STAR best practices recommend that energy be addressed at the start of design and through at least one year after energy-use data are available from utility bills. During that period, the design team has a tremendous opportunity to help owners understand how to operate the building at peak efficiency by sharing insight about the design’s capabilities and learning how the project is actually performing day to day.

The ENERGY STAR program helps bridge the gap between design and performance by using the same EPA score to assess energy during design and in the completed building. EPA has been successful in raising awareness in the marketplace, and many participating architects see the value of using ENERGY STAR to help clients reach their goals. Having their projects earn the most recognized symbol in the country for energy efficiency lets the owners and designers show their peers and the community that they’re committed to protecting the environment by partnering with EPA.

Achieving performance goals starts with ENERGY STAR and a great design. Then it requires follow through with building commissioning, tracking energy use, educating occupants and due diligence. In turn, top-performing buildings will sustain us well into the future by reducing energy use, dependence on fossil fuels and the effects of global climate change.

Resources: The Architects and Projects table features projects that earned ENERGY STAR for the design and operating building. Click the “Status” tab to display those projects. The table also lists all projects that have achieved Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR to date.

Karen P. Butler manages Commercial Building Design--EPA ENERGY STAR Program.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Is the Gulf Disaster Over or Just Beginning?

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:27:45 -0400

The Deepwater Horizon disaster should have reminded us as a society that thinking of ourselves as a “developed” nation is a bit premature. A fully developed nation has the capacity to meet its needs without operating in a way that creates existential threats. We do not meet that standard yet in the U.S. What do you think?

Let’s review: The Gulf oil blow-out, which may have resulted from negligence, left 11 people dead, unknown millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf, millions of sea mammals and fish dead, and a wide range of family businesses destroyed—possibly forever. The well was closed about one month ago, and now the punch line is “it’s over.” Really?

In addition to the beach cleanup, which is ongoing, work is just beginning on a number of fronts. The government has multiple investigations into London-based BP and its own regulators to determine how many different systematic failures led to the blow-out. Countless lawsuits are being filed by individuals, families and businesses. Fisheries are being examined to determine whether they are safe. Researchers are examining strategies for raising the funds necessary to truly understand where the oil has gone and what its long-term effects will be. This is not over. The $20 billion fund established by BP to compensate victims doesn’t even begin to reflect the true costs here.

More than all of this combined, the biggest issue on the table remains unspoken. We are all responsible for this. Raise your hand; you are the problem. Check your 401k. Examine your driving habits. Consider whom you have voted for the past 20 years. Recall how many actions you have taken to indicate to companies and the government that our addiction to oil costs us more in life and treasure than it will ever be worth. If after conducting this analysis you conclude you are guilt-free—somehow not part of the oil-based economy in this country, living a life without connection or responsibility for this and other disasters like it—then call me at (202) 429-2694. We can chat about the oil-driven violence in Nigeria, the two Gulf wars and I’ll bring you up to speed on this little news item called climate change.

What will it ultimately take to fundamentally shift our mindset to recognize that oil is not the only, the best or even a reasonable way to fuel our lives? Ultimately, some event will shake us even more than the Gulf disaster did. Instead of waiting for that catastrophe, how about we wake up now!

Michael P. Washburn, Ph.D., is the senior director for Eastern forests for The Wilderness Society and a member of Eco-Logic's advisory board.

Greatly Reduce Your Building’s Energy Use in 12 Months

Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:15:41 -0400

When dealing with commercial buildings, we all know the basic approaches to energy efficiency: improved operations and maintenance, equipment upgrades and energy-saving behaviors. As more organizations adopt energy-saving programs, we’ve seen many best practices emerge. These usually involve corporate commitments, planning, measurement and tracking, and a staged approach to improvements. The results can be significant; organizations are able to trim energy use by 30 percent or more during the course of an energy-efficiency program.

What if the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required you to reduce your building’s energy consumption as much as possible in 12 months, starting today? What would you do? Where would you start?

It so happens that we made 14 phone calls requiring this when we launched EPA’s National Building Competition. We upped the stakes—and added an element of fun—by turning this into a competition. As part of the rules, we asked each of our 14 competitors to provide regular updates to let us know what they were doing to save energy. We set them up with Twitter accounts and they embraced the idea, firing off a flurry of tweets within minutes of launch. Now, three months later, we have compiled a unique peek into some of the measures these 14 buildings are taking to save as much energy as possible. Some already had energy-efficiency programs in place when they got the call from EPA; some didn’t. Some have big budgets and a dedicated staff of energy managers; some don’t.

Before we get into the tweets, if you haven’t already, please meet our 14 competitors. They include hotels, schools, college dorms, retail stores, office buildings and other buildings we see in our communities every day. Their strategies are paying off already at the competition’s midpoint; leading competitors are turning in double-digit reductions in just six months!

Let’s take a look at some of the themes that have emerged from the activity. These were all originally written as tweets, hence the shorthand writing style.

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

Working with Different Teams in Your Building

1525 Wilson Blvd.: Our vendors are helping us work off the waste! Janitorial team checks to make sure all HVAC vents are clean and unobstructed.

Sheraton Austin Hotel: Worked with our banquets team on a program to ensure lights are off in unused banquet spaces.

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: We've been retraining the housekeeping staff and supervisors to reset guestroom thermostats back to minimal setback at check out.

Timers and Sensors

522 Fifth Ave.: Installed a timer on a window unit in the engineering managers' office. Looking for more "little" ways to save energy.

Solon Family Health Center: We’re replacing light switches with new energy-saving, time-sensor switches.

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: We've installed motion-sensor light switches for entry light and bathroom in guestrooms as a test. Will let you know how it goes.

Morrison Hall: UNC Morrison is testing VERVE Living Systems occupancy sensor in four rooms to turn up thermostat when room is unoccupied.

Morrison Hall: Housing and Energy Management are partnering to schedule room-by-room occupancy for first time this summer; 75 percent are unoccupied.

522 Fifth Ave.: 522 Crew is monitoring occupied areas after 6 p.m. to eliminate the need for extended hours of air conditioning. Every minute counts!

JCPenney: Temporarily installed HOBO data loggers as a way to verify our indoor temperatures and humidity.

Other Operations & Maintenance

Virginia Beach Convention Center: Identified unnecessary architectural lights outside of the meeting suites and disabled them for energy savings.

Van Holten Primary School: Bi-level lighting controls in the gym allow P.E. teachers to use less energy. Keep the temperature lower in the gym, too.

JCPenney: Completed updating the weather stripping and door brushes at all the store’s exterior entrances. No air leaks here!

TuckerHall: Adjusting the schedule on outside air units at Tucker Hall made chilled water use drop by 25 percent. Little changes make big differences!

522 Fifth Ave.: Build ice at night to cool during the day. Cheaper energy?lower peak demand?less power supplied to grid?less fossil fuel burned.

JCPenney: We have completed the new window tinting at the store’s south entrance. This should help with the summer months ahead.

Virginia Beach Convention Center: Our ops team designed and installed custom covers for refrigerated cases to conserve energy in the concession stands.

522 Fifth Ave.: Water balanced the chill water systems to slow down the pumps and save kWh.

UPGRADES

Lighting

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: T8 fluorescent bulb retrofit installation. Changed all the bulbs from 36W to 25W with an energy savings of 30 percent.

522 Fifth Ave.: Replaced battery-pack lighting in all three stairwells with more efficient fixtures—and took the stairs instead of the elevator.

Solon Family Health Center: With the replacement of halogen lights with LEDs, we've lowered the wattage and have better illumination, giving a more inviting atmosphere.

Sheraton Austin Hotel: We just finished changing out the lighting on all of our exit signs. Each sign's lighting went from 20 watts to 2 watts!

Other Upgrades

Virginia Beach Convention Center: Just installed new MERV 14 HVAC filters for improved indoor air quality and energy efficiency.

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: Getting a quote from a speed-drive contractor on an installation upgrade to the hotel’s main air handlers to help reduce non-peak energy use.

Solon Family Health Center: Planting more shade trees on west side of building.

522 Fifth Ave.: Cool! Installed new chiller with variable frequency drive. Lower peak demand, lower consumption, increased cooling efficiency.

Solon Family Health Center: One of our two new energy-efficient elevators is in the process of being installed.

BEHAVIORAL CHANGES

Solon Family Health Center: Employees have walked up 11,949 steps to save energy. Combined, that’s nearly to the top of Mt. Fuji!

Employees’ Computer Monitors

522 Fifth Ave.: Frank, Steve, Chris and Amy are lowering their monitor brightness to a 50 percent level. Every little bit helps!

1525 Wilson Blvd.: Accenture, a two-floor tenant, has set their monitors to go into "sleep mode" after 20 minutes of inactivity. Estimated savings: 10,000 kWh per month!

Natural Light

Van Holten Primary School: Three more weeks of school to go. We're using natural light to keep the demand and classroom temperature down.

Crystal River Elementary School: Here we are using a light meter to find out more about how much natural light we really have in our school.

Dashboards, Banners, Signs

522 Fifth Ave.: Finalizing elevator cab energy dashboards: a captive audience. If occupants can SEE the energy they use, they might change their ways!

Morrison Hall: UNC Morrison's Lucid Technologies dashboard shows student energy use through finals, parties and moving out.

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: Moved our “EPA Contestant Banner” to the employees’ corridor to remind all employees to do their best to conserve energy at work and home.

Courtyard Marriott San Diego Downtown: Created new guest-room door hangers with info about the EPA National Building Competition. They ask guests to help us make a positive impact.

Van Holten Primary School: Banner looks great on our building! Displaying it reminds us to turn it back or turn it off to save energy.

Read all the contestant tweets and access links to photos and videos.

Lauren Pitcher is a communications specialist in the ENERGY STAR Commercial & Industrial Buildings Program.

UL: Third-party Energy-efficiency Testing Offers Opportunity to Prove Compliance with Government Programs

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:02:20 -0400

Earlier this month, the International Energy Association released a report that noted an “energy technology revolution” is underway. This is exciting news for those of us who have been working to put the pieces in place to encourage this type of a market shift. Policy makers have been actively seeking solutions to the energy demand and supply conundrum, often using a variety of tools to do so. Among the most popular techniques employed: the voluntary reduction program. These programs, targeted at businesses and consumers, are meant to encourage the development and eventual purchase of energy-efficient products.

Consumers and manufacturers are looking for more efficient products and processes, and several government programs exist around the world to set standards and encourage efficiency for products and processes. In fact, many governments are actively changing requirements.

In Europe, the Energy-related Products Directive is expanding its product categories. The revised Energy Labeling Directive will extend the scope of the EU legislation on energy-related products to include all goods impacting energy consumption, directly or indirectly, such as windows.

As of October 2009, all televisions sold in Australia must meet minimum energy-use requirements and follow the Energy Rating Label system. In October 2012, these minimum requirements will increase.

California has a similar law, which will go into effect in 2011, targeted specifically at new TVs up to 58 inches. On Nov. 19, 2009, the Associated Press reported that models larger than 58 inches, which account for approximately 3 percent of the market, were initially exempt from these energy-efficiency requirements in a concession to sellers of high-end home-theater TVs. However, the commission is expected to regulate these larger models in the future.

As the global economy becomes increasingly energy conscious, governments will continue to evaluate and regulate the design and use of products to increase efficiency. To help ensure products are adhering to requirements, governments are looking to third-party testing and certification organizations to validate that energy-efficiency standards are being met.

Today, manufacturer self-declared energy efficiency claims are giving way to a new era of third-party testing and validation. In North America, there have been several significant announcements this year that impact manufacturers participating in the ENERGY STAR program or selling products in Canada. The Natural Resources Canada Office of Energy Efficiency has historically regulated appliances, HVAC equipment and motors. Starting July 1, 2011, NRCan is proposing energy labeling requirements for televisions. In addition to the new regulations in Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy recently announced intentions to expand regulated product categories and develop stricter efficiency requirements. EPA also will require that all products be tested by an accredited laboratory before qualifying for ENERGY STAR.

Testing organizations are evolving to meet these new regulations. In February 2010, UL Environment launched the Energy Efficiency Certification Mark to show compliance with energy-efficiency standards and regulations. The EEC Mark appears on home products proven to meet energy-efficiency requirements outlined by entities, like EPA, NRCan and the California Energy Commission. Participating product categories include appliances; heating, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems; high-tech equipment; and lighting products. More product categories and geographic markets will be added over time.

During the next few years, government energy-efficiency requirements will continue to evolve to address increasing demands for energy efficiency. Independent energy-efficiency testing programs may be new today, but expect them to be “business as usual” tomorrow.

Marcello Manca is vice president and general manager for UL Environment Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Find out more about the UL Environment Energy Efficiency Certification program at www.ulenvironment.com.

Familiarize Yourself with Internal Revenue Code Section 179D

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:48:14 -0400

Louisville, Ky.-based Concord Energy Strategies LLC is hosting an upcoming free educational Webinar about Internal Revenue Code Section 179D. The Webinar takes place Aug. 4, 1-2 p.m. EST/10-11 a.m. PST.

Originally passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expanded upon in IRS Notices 2006-52 and 2008-40, Section 179D allows for a one-time tax deduction, worth up to $1.80 per square foot, for any new construction or retrofit placed in service between Dec. 31, 2005 and Jan. 1, 2014.

To qualify, the commercial project must meet specific energy-efficiency benchmarks that improve upon ASHRAE 90.1-2001. For any new construction or retrofit building that meets a 50 percent energy-power-cost reduction compared to the ASHRAE 90.1-2001 standard, a deduction worth $1.80 per square foot is available. Those buildings put in service or retrofitted that earn at least a 16 2/3 percent energy-power-cost reduction can earn a partial deduction worth up to 60 cents per square foot.

Energy-power-cost reductions can be made in any of the three following subsystems: HVAC, interior lighting and building envelope. One of the unique provisions of this tax-incentive program is that for newly constructed or renovated publicly owned buildings (defined as governmental or municipality), a tax deduction is allowed for the lead designer of the energy-efficient property. This means architects, engineers, energy service companies and other design professionals are in the position to reap considerable tax benefits for their public design work. (Read more about the tax deduction for design professionals on Eco-Logic.)

To claim the 179D deduction, tax payers are required to have an independent third party complete an analysis, certification and site visit to determine whether the building improves upon ASHRAE 90.1-2001. For example, Concord Energy Strategies is a multi-disciplinary firm of certified public accountants and engineers who help clients maximize their tax savings through the EPAct/179D deduction.

I will be conducting the free Webinar on Aug. 4 and hope you will join me.

To register: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/212998139

For more information: education@concordenergystrategies.com, (888) 897-5445, www.concordenergystrategies.com

Dennis Stilger Jr. is managing member of Concord Energy Strategies LLC, Louisville, Ky.

Conference Wrap-up: ENERGY STAR and the American Institute of Architects Team Up in Miami

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:01:19 -0400

“Design for the New Decade” was the theme for the 2010 American Institute of Architects National Convention, which just took place June 10-12 in Miami. Bustling with the usual workshops, networking opportunities and vendor exhibits, the convention also offered provocative keynote speeches. The speakers encouraged us to take a step back, reflect about how we consume our resources, and examine our quality of life and the role architects play in making things happen for the better.

Although their words were inspirational—occasionally alarming enough to shake some people out of their complacency—they didn’t always leave us with guidance about what to do today, tomorrow or in the near term to make a difference in the way our planet evolves.

That made me appreciate even more the work the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ENERGY STAR program has accomplished with AIA during recent years. Together, our joint efforts to green the built environment in systemic, practical ways have not only succeeded, but have also expanded each year.

EPA works with nonprofit member organizations, like AIA, to encourage professionals in many different walks of life to participate in voluntary sustainability programs covering a broad range of environmental issues. ENERGY STAR is one such program where the principles of sustainability have been turned into concrete actionable strategies.

In joining ENERGY STAR, AIA made a fundamental commitment to help protect the environment by promoting superior energy performance in commercial buildings. That, in turn, enhances the financial health of AIA members and their clients and protects the environment for future generations. Partnering with ENERGY STAR, AIA has committed to encouraging architects to:

Use ENERGY STAR tools and resources to assess fossil-fuel energy use associated with carbon-dioxide emissions for commercial building projects.

Support the ENERGY STAR Challenge—EPA’s national call-to-action to help fight climate change.

AIA has gone even further with its commitment by incorporating the EPA energy-performance metrics in the AIA Committee on the Environment’s Top 10 Green Projects criteria and actively supporting the ENERGY STAR Challenge for the past four years.

The outstanding results of our joint efforts were showcased at the Miami convention in the COTE and ENERGY STAR galleries. The two galleries featured projects from firms that are “designing far beyond the new decade.” These firms are leading the way and showing others that sustainable energy strategies are good design for the environment and bottom line.

The ENERGY STAR Challenge differs in approach from the COTE Top 10 Green Projects competition. The challenge is a call-to-action encouraging all firms to participate. We were excited to have almost 60 different architecture firms this year submit more than 80 design projects that met or exceeded the EPA score of 75 to earn ENERGY STAR certification and be honored in Miami. More than 30 of these projects are intended to reduce fossil-fuel energy use and CO2 emissions by 50 percent or more, clearly demonstrating that meeting the AIA 2030 Commitment is an attainable goal.

What’s also unique about the ENERGY STAR Challenge projects is they all report estimated whole-building energy use. That includes the human interaction with the building systems, such as plug loads, hours the building will be occupied, and process loads for cooking and building services. These factors account for the largest drivers of energy use. Although building codes are ramping up requirements for equipment efficiencies, codes do not offer the whole-building calculation necessary to compare the design energy to actual energy use of “real” buildings with similar functions.

EPA’s approach goes beyond business as usual and requires knowing how buildings use energy and how much they use. Case in point: At the start of my session, “From Alpha to Omega with ENERGY STAR,” in Miami, I asked how many people had actually gone back to measure the energy performance of their projects. A few people hesitantly raised their hands. Yet, using EPA’s online tools to benchmark a building once it is operating is very straightforward. I immediately reversed the timeframe of my question to keep the audience engaged: “How many intend to build this into their work from now on?” More than half the audience raised their hands to affirm that that they would measure energy performance on future completed projects. Now that’s moving in the right direction!

My session demonstrated how EPA online tools make it easy to communicate the energy and CO2 reduction goals for design projects and the performance results for completed, operating buildings. The ENERGY STAR Challenge is one way that architects and building owners can show they are achieving AIA’s goals and contributing to EPA’s mission to prevent greenhouse-gas emissions.

In front of their peers in Miami at a special recognition ceremony, Kohl’s Department Store and MulvannyG2 Architecture, one of Kohl’s architecture firms, were honored by EPA and AIA for working together to establish energy and sustainability goals for new store designs. They also were recognized for operating their portfolio of stores so that as many as possible earn the ENERGY STAR label for superior performance. EPA’s tools make it easy for Kohl’s to target, measure and track the energy use from designing to operating their stores by using the same rating scale throughout the building’s life cycle. The tools allow Kohl’s and its designers to evaluate whether design goals were achieved, how much energy their stores really use and whether GHG emissions from energy use are decreasing over time. In June, the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Architects was also proud to launch its first ever Facebook Favorite Contest, which showcased 10 projects from this year’s submittals. We “tweeted” on Twitter to get the word out to architects and their friends about voting for their favorite. The response was great!

Congratulations to the Facebook Favorite project, the 300 University Avenue office project in Sacramento, Calif., designed by Dreyfuss & Blackford Architects. The runner-up was the Mingalarama Monastery Residence Hall in Silver Spring, Md., designed by Tom Nyein. All the projects can be found on the AIA Facebook page.

Thanks to AIA’s support and the architectural firms that took the ENERGY STAR Challenge and submitted energy-efficient projects this year, we had a very successful 2010 convention and look forward to next year in New Orleans. I encourage every architecture firm and every building owner to participate in the ENERGY STAR Challenge—starting today—and help our nation reduce the carbon footprint of current and future buildings.

Karen P. Butler manages Commercial Building Design--EPA ENERGY STAR Program.

Fourteen Buildings Compete to "Work Off the Waste"

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:46:12 -0400

As you may have read in the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. EPA launched the National Building Competition last month, the first national energy-efficiency contest of its kind. Featuring a variety of commercial buildings from across the country, contestants are competing to save energy and fight climate change by "working off the waste" through improvements in energy efficiency. The building that sheds the most energy waste on a percentage basis will be declared the winner by EPA on Oct. 26.

Nearly 200 buildings applied to compete in the contest. EPA selected 14 buildings, including schools, hotels, dormitories, stores, offices, museums and other buildings we see in our communities every day. The buildings were chosen to represent ENERGY STAR partners in a variety of markets across the country and a wide range of building sizes, ages and space types.

The following buildings’ monthly energy use is being measured using EPA’s online energy tracking tool, Portfolio Manager:

522 Fifth Ave. building, New York

1525 Wilson Blvd. building, Arlington, Va.

Crystal River Elementary School, Carbondale, Colo.

Courtyard by Marriott San Diego Downtown, San Diego

JCPenney Store 1778, Orange, Calif.

Maplewood Mall, St. Paul, Minn.

Memorial Arts Building at the Woodruff Arts Center, Atlanta

Morrison Residence Hall at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Sears, Glen Burnie, Md.

Sheraton Austin Hotel, Austin, Texas

Solon Family Health Center at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland

Tucker Residence Hall at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.

Van Holten Primary School, Bridgewater, N.J.

Virginia Beach Convention Center, Virginia Beach, Va.

The Buildings’ Workout Routines

The 14 contestants already are well underway with their "slim downs." Using ENERGY STAR best practices and guidelines, building managers are looking for ways to reduce energy use from simple behavior changes to cost-effective technology upgrades.

What are some of the go-to strategies these contestants are using to save energy? Students—from elementary school to college—are making sure lights are turned out in their classes and campus dorms when no one is using them. Sears is weather stripping around doors and windows to prevent heat gain and loss. JCPenney is retrofitting lighting to energy-efficient LEDs and installing window tinting on south-facing windows and doors. 522 Fifth Ave., a more than 100-year-old mid-town Manhattan office building, is coordinating with cleaning staff to turn off lights earlier and has installed variable frequency drives on its fans to save energy.

At UNC Chapel Hill’s Morrison Hall student dorm, all eyes are on one resident advisor who will have the daunting task of ensuring that the dorm’s summer guests—high-school students who stay for a week at a time while participating in on-campus programs—use energy-efficient behaviors during their brief stays. Down the road at NC State’s Tucker Hall, students are creating and posting energy awareness videos on YouTube. There are additional videos on Tucker Hall’s Twitter page.

At the Virginia Beach Convention Center, staff members strive to provide a world-class meeting space with a low carbon footprint. Since the competition began, they’ve designed and installed custom covers for refrigerated drink cases, keeping cold air in and energy bills low.

The employees of the Cleveland Clinic’s Solon Family Health Center are getting in on the weight-loss-themed energy competition and have committed to use the stairs instead of elevators. They’re getting important exercise and cutting energy use. After only one week, the employees walked up nearly 12,000 steps, which almost is the height of Mt. Fuji. Their efforts, combined with good operations and improvements by the facilities team, are helping to keep the health center in fighting shape.

Visit the National Building Competition Web site to find out other ways the contestants are saving energy, as well as view photos and profiles, get tips for making your own facility more efficient and read “Advice from the Experts” blog posts. Be sure to check out the live Twitter feed or read through all past tweets at www.twitter.com/EnergyStarBldgs/Contestants. Television personality Bob Harper will also provide energy fitness tips for the contestants through a series of videos that will be available on the contest Web site.

Once you've picked your favorite contestants, look for the results of the first weigh-in on July 21!

Lauren Pitcher is a communications specialist in the ENERGY STAR Commercial & Industrial Buildings Program.

Sustaining Forests: Balancing across the Spectrum

Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:29:31 -0400

Some of you know me from the five years I spent working for the Forest Stewardship Council. During the past couple years I have been working on land-conservation issues, which is a different dynamic from engaging in the certification debate. However, both roles complement one another in that they reflect different positions on the spectrum of approaches to forest conservation.

At the base of the forest-conservation movement is a desire to maintain healthy forests across the planet. We need to do this for a variety of reasons, including ameliorating climate change, the fact that forests provide tremendous value in cleaning water, and forests are home to myriad creatures great and small without which this little planet would be quite lonely. Further, forests minimize the impact of natural disasters, such as mudslides and flooding.

So, with conservation as the goal, the question becomes how do we protect forests. It turns out there are many different ways to do this, all of which must be applied or ultimately we fail as so many forces drive change in our forests. These forces include ownership patterns, varying regulatory regimes or the lack thereof, market forces, climate change, bugs, fires, I won’t go on. In other words, we need a big tool box.

In my work with The Wilderness Society we actively seek the protection of lands as parks, monuments, recreation areas and the like. This often precludes logging but results in forest carbon sinks, refugia for sensitive wildlife, protection of vital water sources and the ability to adapt to shifts in ecosystems because of climate change

However, we do not suggest that all forests should be off limits. There are many forests in the U.S. and elsewhere that because of flawed fire-management policy, past logging abuses, and various kinds of infestations and disturbances require some level of active management to restore them to health. We at The Wilderness Society call this “restoration forestry.” Indeed, if left alone forests will ultimately level off and move back toward a natural balance, but active management can jumpstart this process within a century. In short, depending on the situation, full protection might be in order; in other cases, restoration and balanced management might be appropriate. It is still true that building with wood is environmentally preferable to steel and plastic. If the spill in the Gulf isn’t enough to convince you of the cost of using plastics, derived from oil, then please contact me.

There is not enough room in this blog for me to convey the science, theory and practice of restoration forestry. What I can tell you is that by preferring certified forest products, particularly FSC-certified and certified-reclaimed wood, you create market forces that signal back to the industry the old ways of doing business no longer meet society’s demands for environmental performance and social equity. Alternatively, buying any old wood could mean that you are in fact buying blood timber, or illegally harvested wood that contributed to a higher magnitude mudslide in a place you might not be able to find on a map. By driving change at this end of the spectrum, you enable a more rational market connection to good practice. This in turn enables improved forest health and gives those of us on the professional side more leverage to make the case for doing the right thing. To be clear, FSC-certified forestry and restoration forestry are not the same thing. That said, alternatives to FSC-certified forestry typically move us away from restoration and toward poor forest health.

Specifying FSC-certified wood complements the ongoing need to set aside and protect truly unique, rare habitats and special places that restore the human soul. This is the end of the spectrum I work on. If you will do your part, I will do mine. If we can meet in the middle, we all win.

Michael P. Washburn, Ph.D., is the senior director for Eastern forests for The Wilderness Society and a member of Eco-Logic's advisory board.

The Cracks Beneath the Street

Wed, 26 May 2010 17:25:15 -0400

I am sitting in my Project 52, which those of you who spend time on whitewater rivers will know to be a kayak. The river level is up, which makes for lots of company on the water, and the guy I am chatting with asks me what I do for work. “I work for EPA on water infrastructure sustainability.” His reaction is typical—no idea what that means. But he kayaks and has some interest in water and seems up for the explanation.

Most folks I know don’t think much about where their water comes from, where it ends up when it goes down the drain or the extensive infrastructure systems that take care of all that. The ones I have cornered, like that kayaker, now know that those water infrastructure systems of pipes and treatment plants are in quiet crisis. Our utilities have done a great job of providing us with safe water to drink by collecting and treating wastewater before discharge, usually into a nearby waterway (that some of us kayak in). But many utilities have underinvested in renewing those systems. And a BIG bill is coming due.

We need to start replacing that stuff at a rate that is sustainable. I have heard estimates that we replace about 0.5 percent of water distribution pipes a year. That would mean we expect those pipes to last, on average, for 200 years. Not likely. NOT sustainable … .

Nationwide, annual utility revenues are roughly $25 billion less than what a sustainable replacement pace would require. We can cover a good portion of that through efficiency, and I coordinate a slew of programs to help utilities cut costs and make the most of every dollar. But utility revenues—and so the price of water services—are also going to have to go up to close that gap.

So next time you hear that water or sewer rates might go up, think about how you depend on those services. Think about how much you spend on cable T.V. or your cell phone (typically more than on water services). Lots of folks have very tight budgets, no question, but if we want to continue to enjoy fabulous water services, we are all going to have to help keep our utilities afloat.

To tune in more to this issue, join us at our facebook page: EPA – Water Is Worth It.

Andy Crossland is the sustainable infrastructure coordinator for EPA’s Office of Water. This blog first was posted in EPA’s Greenversatic blog.

Nature Makes Me Think of Construction

Wed, 26 May 2010 16:38:47 -0400

I had the pleasure of exploring the tropical rainforest on the island of Puerto Rico during my vacation. I was surprised to learn that this was the only rainforest under the supervision of the U.S. Forest Service in any U.S. territory. Hawaii is home to other rainforests, but they are part of the National Park Service—a little trivia to use at the next cocktail party.

Rainforests are the home to more than 50 percent of all species on Earth. They are also responsible for almost 30 percent of the world’s oxygen turnover through photosynthesis from carbon dioxide. I was struck by the size of the plants and trees, as well as the fragile nature of the surroundings. The strange sounds of tree frogs, birds, flowing water and wind moving through the vegetation was a unique experience.

Although this was vacation, I quickly related the rainforest to the building construction industry. We often forget there is no waste in nature. A tree or plant at the end of its life will die, decay and return nutrients to the soil of the rainforest. The soil of the rainforest is not very deep or rich in minerals, so it relies on decaying vegetation to benefit new growth. The sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth, and the rainforest takes advantage of this fact. Tall mahogany or teak trees, some more than 150-feet high, create a thick layer of large leaves that absorb 98 percent of the sunlight that strikes the rainforest. With only 2 percent of the sunlight reaching the forest floor, there is very little vegetation below, which allows for walking and exploring with little difficulty.

Water is captured by the plants from the frequent rainfall. This particular rainforest experiences on average 19 minutes of rainfall six times every day. Some say it takes 20 minutes from the start of a rainfall for any water to reach the floor of the forest. The water that does reach the ground is purified as it permeates through rocks, minerals and plants. The Puerto Rico rainforest trail I traversed included a beautiful waterfall and pool at its base. The 1-mile-long trail out of the forest took us along water falling over rocks and shallow drops that fed into the impressive rainfall below.

OK, so what does all of this have to do with the construction industry? Today we use the term “sustainability” loosely and we often simply equate it to “green”. But only when you begin to appreciate the forces of nature can you truly understand what a sustainable setting is. No waste. No end to the supplies of energy and sustenance. The capture of rainfall without destroying the delicate ecosystems. These are all components of MBDC’s Cradle to Cradle life-cycle analysis certification concept.

In a Cradle to Cradle concept, an industrial system that typically "takes, makes and wastes" can actually create goods and services that generate ecological, social and economic value. William McDonough, one of MBDC’s partners, claims today’s product designers can look to nature for “industrial” nutrient cycling and use the abundance of the sun’s energy in today’s buildings and products.

So what is taking so long to realize that harvesting renewable energy through integration into a building’s envelope makes a lot of sense? Installing photovoltaic systems on a roof or wall surface takes advantage of a free source of energy. Likewise, tapping into the energy from the sun with a water-heating system or heat recovery system on a roof can augment the energy needed for heating water or air inside the building.

A rainwater-harvesting system integrated into a roof assembly can reduce a building’s dependence on a local water supply that is often strained because of climate changes. Once again, the water falling from the sky is free, whereas the water from your faucet has a price attached to it—not to mention embodied energy.

Designing building components that can be removed, disassembled, reused or recycled helps to reduce the solid waste stream and energy needed for replacement virgin materials.

In the systems mentioned above, a metal roof or metal wall assembly can achieve the noted benefits of sustainable design. The design flexibility of today’s metal-building components allows for a variety of aesthetic features and a variety of fastening, attaching and dynamic performance features. With high recycled content and the ability to be completely recyclable, metal-building components are an important contributor to today’s sustainable building design.

Much of this is simply rethinking how we can produce and use building materials and systems. It will take rethinking to make “sustainability” a household word. A walk through a rainforest can make you rethink a lot of how we do things in industry.

Scott Kriner is president of Green Metal Consulting Inc., Macungie, Pa., and a member of Eco-Logic's advisory board.

The Challenge of Measuring Our Carbon Footprint

Tue, 04 May 2010 16:01:17 -0400

Wow, we’re already well into 2010! This is the year the 2030 Challenge says fossil-fuel-energy consumption must be 50 percent better than that of an average building to meet 2030 targets and stave off the irreversible effects of climate change. We have made monumental strides in raising awareness of the impact of energy use in our commercial buildings, but we still have a long way to go to reach consensus about a mix of metrics and measurement tools.

The industry still is trying to figure out the metrics. Some are calling for a metric that shows achieving “net-zero” energy use while others are holding fast to a “percentage better than” reference point. Then there are those who are savvy enough to simply ask “How much energy am I using?” and "If I make improvements to my building or design, will it reduce energy use and carbon-dioxide emissions?".

The latter is the approach deployed by the EPA’s energy-performance scale. Lord Kelvin's adage "To measure is to know" adds credence to this philosophy. The rating requires no fancy tools or time-consuming calculations on the part of the architect. It simply adds up how much energy is used in a building, compares that to energy used by similar buildings and provides a score based on a 1–100 scale. As the energy-use score approaches 100, it means the building is in the top percentile of energy performers—less energy is being used or what is used is being consumed very efficiently.

Many of our critics have contended the score is counterintuitive to reaching net-zero-energy use. My response to them is that net zero is a wonderful conceptual framework for incorporating renewable energy in designing future buildings. However, most of the commercial building properties in this country will not reach net-zero-energy consumption any time in the immediate future or by 2030. So, in the mean time, why not measure actual energy consumption while finding new and innovative ways to reduce fossil-fuel-energy use rather than quibble over whether we measure to zero or to 100?

This brings up another point: designing buildings to meet the 2030 goals mandated by many industry groups and state and local governments. With ENERGY STAR, architects and their engineering teams are working with building owners to do their part to not only design buildings to meet the challenge, but also take it one step further by measuring the performance of their projects and learning valuable lessons about how to design, construct and operate buildings that perform at their very highest level.

The 2010 ENERGY STAR Challenge will showcase architects, engineers and building owners who are taking action and pushing the boundaries beyond conventional thinking RIGHT NOW. They are designing and operating future buildings to be more efficient and more sustainable by preventing CO2 emissions. How do we know they are making a difference? These companies set targets, measure outcomes and submit their results to EPA.

Through the end of 2009, more than 110 architects/engineering firms have taken the ENERGY STAR Challenge and submitted more than 225 projects, including almost 80 that are intended to achieve 50 percent or greater CO2 and energy-use reductions. These architects are providing their clients with a goal to strive for once the building is operating. And the owner, along with the operations and management staff and occupants, will have a head start in meeting energy and carbon goals through measuring and verifying the building's performance.

This year and going forward, EPA's goal is to create ways to close the gap between design and performance. We've already incorporated a rating system that uses the same metrics for designing and operating buildings. And, we've created companion tools for target setting and tracking energy use—Target Finder and Portfolio Manager. Since 2007, we’ve showcased and recognized owners and architecture teams who are taking the concept full circle. We know the forward-thinking architects and owners are on board. The challenge now is to get everyone to participate.

Kohl’s Department Stores exemplify the ENERGY STAR mantra by earning the building label for almost 25 percent of its building portfolio. Kohl’s commitment doesn’t stop there. The company’s designers already have completed projects that are Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR with the intent to add these properties to the inventory of their top-performing buildings. Working with the architecture firms of Schroeder and Holt Architects and Mulvanny G2 Architecture, Kohl’s designs are expected to reduce the firm’s carbon footprint by an estimated 1,950 metric tons per year compared to average buildings. For existing properties, they've established goals to reduce energy consumption by 10 percent in 2013 from their 2007 baseline. Kohl’s outstanding efforts have garnered the coveted ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Award for outstanding commitment and achievement in energy efficiency.

EPA applauds the lofty efforts of our partners who are not afraid to design to a realistic target and measure their outcomes—an important and necessary step in moving toward net-zero-energy use, if I may borrow the phrase! The design projects that have recently achieved a 75 or greater score and received Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR certification will be on display at the 2010 American Institute of Architects National Convention in Miami, June 10-13.

Join us in Miami, take the ENERGY STAR Challenge and reduce our nation’s carbon footprint one design at a time.

Karen P. Butler manages Commercial Building Design--EPA ENERGY STAR Program.

Dubuque: A Lesson in Community Spirit

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:10:17 -0400

Last summer I was invited to tour the city of Dubuque, Iowa, to learn about its sustainability initiatives. Because I’m originally from Iowa, I jumped at the chance to see how a city in my home state is contributing to a healthy built environment. I expected to tour a few buildings, get an overview of the city’s goals and come away with a couple story ideas for Eco-Logic. What I got was a truly inspiring insider’s view of a small city—population 57,686, according to the 2000 census—whose leaders never make a decision without considering how it will affect Dubuque’s residents today and in the future. I was amazed by Dubuque and its leaders—and I must admit, I was a little overwhelmed by the number of story ideas with which I left Iowa.

Dubuque is a city of firsts: It was one of the first cities in Iowa, chartered in 1833, and became one of the first participants in a federal urban Main Street program in 1985. Today, it is one of the first cities in Iowa—if not the first—to holistically incorporate sustainability throughout its town. “I really believe that we have always been a community about sustainability; we just didn’t label it as that,” says Cindy Steinhauser, assistant city manager. “We have done things over the years to reinvent ourselves and re-energize our population.”

One example of Dubuque’s reinvention occurred during the Farm Crisis of the 1980s. At the time, Dubuque’s economy greatly relied on the surrounding farmland. Most of the city’s workforce reported to a meat-packing plant and John Deere tractor factory. Because of minimal trade barriers, high commodity prices, increased farm incomes and low interest rates, our nation’s farmers went into deep debt expecting levels to continue. When they didn’t, many farmers lost their land, which affected surrounding cities and their workforces.

“In 1985, Dubuque’s downtown buildings experienced 55 percent vacancy,” Steinhauser remembers. “The joke in town was ‘the last one to leave Dubuque, turn off the lights.’”

Knowing the city’s workforce had to be diversified, a forward-thinking group of business leaders offered up personal funds to build Mystique, Dubuque’s greyhound park and casino. The Dubuque Racing Association, which is the non-profit organization that is the holder of the gaming license under which Mystique operates, does a profit share with the city at the end of the year. The city receives lease revenue from the gaming operation and 50 percent of the profits. The other 50 percent provides charitable giving, such as funding volunteer fire departments, domestic-violence campaigns, and computers and technology programs for schools; a new endowment fund; and a future fund program that makes one-time significant gifts to projects, such as a recent ice-arena project that was led by a local youth hockey group.

Another reinvention came in the form of the Envision 2010 program, which encouraged citizens from Dubuque and surrounding areas—including Illinois and Wisconsin—to contribute ideas that would ensure the future success of the tri-state area. The program received 2,300 submissions, which were narrowed down by a community-based selection committee to 10. (To review all 10 selections, visit www.envision2010.org.)

Among the 10 visionary projects are construction of a community health center and revitalization of Dubuque’s warehouse district. The Crescent Community Health Center, which provides high-quality affordable medical and dental regardless of ability to pay, now is housed in Dubuque’s historic casket company building. The warehouse district, also known as the Millwork District, is an ongoing project that is converting historic brick structures into businesses, restaurants, shops and residences.

In the coming months, Eco-Logic will profile several of Dubuque’s buildings in the Millwork District and beyond, including the unique stories that come with each one. As you learn about Dubuque, you’ll see each project is unique in vision and financing. "We feel pretty passionately about what we can do as communities to come together and create change," Steinhauser declares. "We believe the formula exists in every community; its just a matter of how you choose to act."

Dubuque: An Old Industrial River Town Redefines Itself

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:57:02 -0400

Although officially claimed by Iowa, Dubuque’s unique geographic location on the Mississippi River at the juncture of Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin made it a longtime tri-state manufacturing powerhouse and a key port city.

However, by the 1980s Dubuque faced hard times. The community suffered when local manufacturers experienced an economic downturn, and few residents were able to avoid the slump. A sizable portion of downtown Dubuque took on the blighted look of so many older industrial cities. Perhaps worst of all, the local population and visitors alike felt disconnected from the city’s prime natural asset, the Mississippi River. The Port of Dubuque was plagued by an outsized industrial presence, brownfields and limited public access.

In the early 1990s a unique partnership of state and local organizations emerged to put Dubuque back on track. America’s River set out to revitalize the economy and reenergize community spirit. Partner groups, including the city of Dubuque, Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce and Dubuque County, focused on riverfront renewal, starting with efforts to develop riverside property for public use. The initiative was aided by the Dubuque County Historical Society’s decision to expand its Mississippi River Museum.

By the start of the 2000s Dubuque’s revival was well underway. In addition to ongoing riverfront development, other projects soon followed suit. These included revitalization of the city’s warehouse district, infrastructure improvements, and planned and managed growth.

The outside world soon took notice. Dubuque became one of three cities, including San Francisco and Seattle, designated a Preservation Green Lab Community by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Site Selection magazine ranked the city a “2008 Top Ten Metro” among those with a population of less than 200,000. (In 2008 Dubuque’s population was estimated at 57,250, making it the eighth-largest city in the state.) U.S. News declared the city “has managed a striking two-decade turnaround…. Along the way, Dubuque has set the pace for job growth in Iowa and rediscovered a long-ignored asset: the river, which runs wide and beautiful here.”

Manufacturing continues to play a major role in the Dubuque economy, but thanks to a concerted effort to diversify, the region today also is home to growing health-care, education and financial-services sectors. Tourism, technology and publishing are among the largest and fastest-growing industries. Longstanding area manufacturing stalwarts, including John Deere and Hormel, now are joined by IBM, McGraw-Hill and McKesson. Dubuque’s inspired reinvention offers hope to other older industrial cities that are seeking a way to recapture their former prosperity.

ENERGY STAR: EPA Unveils Second Annual Ranking of U.S. Cities with the Most ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 17:14:45 -0400

Ever wonder how green your city really is? During the years we’ve witnessed a significant increase in the number of energy-efficient commercial buildings around the nation. But exactly how much of a difference have these projects made on a city-wide and national basis?

On March 23, the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a list of U.S. metropolitan areas with the greatest number of energy-efficient buildings (those that earned EPA’s ENERGY STAR in 2009). The list is headed by Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Denver; Chicago; Houston; Lakeland, Fla.; Dallas-Fort Worth; Atlanta; and New York.

"These cities see the importance of taking action on climate change and are working with EPA to fight back,” says EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Communities from Los Angeles to Louisville are reducing greenhouse gases and cutting energy bills with buildings that have earned EPA’s ENERGY STAR.”

Jockeying for Position EPA first debuted its ranking of cities with the most ENERGY STAR-labeled buildings in 2009. This year, Los Angeles remains in first place; Washington picks up second; Denver and Chicago move into the top five; and Lakeland and New York are new to the top 10.

The reasons behind a city’s rise or fall in the rankings have much to do with individual building activity in 2009. However, there are some commonalities among the cities near the top of the list. Chief among them is the active involvement and support of city and business leaders. For example, five of the top 10 cities—Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington--have passed legislation mandating that a building must measure and disclose its energy use. Three cities—Chicago, San Francisco and Washington--also launched voluntary campaigns, or “challenges,” to encourage buildings to reduce their energy use.

Seven of the top 10 cities—Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington—participate in the ENERGY STAR Challenge, a national call-to-action to reduce the energy use of America’s buildings by 10 percent or more. In support of their pledge, these seven cities are putting resources behind outreach, education and support of participating organizations.

Finally, five of the top 10 cities—Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington—had the support of local utilities and/or other third-party program sponsors to provide assistance, outreach and incentive programs to local building owners and managers.

Real Numbers, Real Savings Energy use in commercial buildings accounts for 17 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions at a cost of more than $100 billion per year. EPA awards the ENERGY STAR to commercial buildings that perform in the top 25 percent of buildings nationwide compared to similar buildings. Thirteen types of buildings can earn the ENERGY STAR, including schools, hospitals, office buildings, retail stores and supermarkets.

Continuing the impressive growth of the past several years, in 2009 nearly 3,900 commercial buildings earned the ENERGY STAR, representing annual savings of more than $900 million in utility bills and more than 4.7 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Since EPA awarded the first ENERGY STAR to a building in 1999, nearly 9,000 buildings across America have earned the ENERGY STAR as of the end of 2009, representing more than a 40 percent increase over last year’s total. Overall annual utility savings have climbed to more than $1.6 billion and GHG emissions equal to the emissions of more than 1 million homes per year have been prevented.

The Top 25 City Rankings Based on the number of ENERGY STAR qualified buildings in 2009, the top 25 cities are:

1 Los Angeles

2 Washington, D.C.

3 San Francisco

4 Denver

5 Chicago

6 Houston

7 Lakeland, Fla.

8 Dallas-Fort Worth

9 Atlanta

10 New York

11 Minneapolis-St. Paul

12 Portland, Ore.

13 Boston

14 Seattle

15 Detroit

16 Sacramento, Calif.

17 San Diego

18 Austin, Texas

19 Miami

20 Phoenix

21 Ogden, Utah

22 Charlotte, N.C.

23 Indianapolis

24 Des Moines, Iowa; Fort Collins, Colo.; Philadelphia

25 Louisville, Ky.

Don’t see your city on the list? Perhaps it will be there soon. With more green-building projects looming on the horizon than ever before, the landscape of energy efficiency is continually changing. EPA’s ENERGY STAR program is proud to be a part of the movement toward a greener, brighter future. For more information about the top 25 list or to view labeled buildings in your city, visit ENERGY STAR Labeled Buildings & Plants on ENERGY STAR’s Web site.

Lauren Pitcher is a communications specialist in the ENERGY STAR Commercial & Industrial Buildings Program.

Wrapped Is (Usually) Bad

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:41:10 -0400

I recently was walking the insulation aisle of a big home store when to my dismay I saw wrapped fiberglass insulation is back. This is batt fiberglass insulation that is in a thin, perforated plastic sheathing so the fiberglass is contained in a tube of sorts. It’s supposed to be easier to handle. I’m not so sure about that, but I am sure that this type of insulation is usually bad news.

When I first saw this kind of insulation about seven years ago, its maker made the claim that the insulation was safe to install over existing insulation (even though it’s wrapped in plastic, or, one could say, “faced”). The manufacturer said because of the perforations in the plastic wrapping, it would still allow water vapor to pass through. It doesn’t. The company isn’t making that claim now—or at least I didn’t see it on the label—but buyer beware! Don’t put this insulation over existing insulation and assume that it will breathe. It absolutely doesn’t.

I bought a roll, tore off some of the plastic wrapping (holes and all) and then I covered a steaming pot of water with the perforated wrap. Sure, some of the water vapor probably did escape through the holes but a lot of it condensed on the underside of the wrapping. Experiment with this yourself: Take some kitchen plastic wrap and punch holes in it. Then cover a glass that you just filled halfway with steaming water and watch what happens. If you use this wrapped insulation, you invite the same potential condensation in your attic.

In addition, you really shouldn’t install wrapped fiberglass insulation without a mask, eye protection, gloves, long-sleeve shirt and pants, etc. At least I wouldn’t. Once you cut the roll, you’ve exposed the fiberglass. Buy the regular unfaced batts instead. They’ll let water vapor through and they’re cheaper.

To me, this stuff is a rip-off. I have had clients remove this type of insulation when I’ve found it in their attics over the top of older insulation. The most recent one was a widow, and she didn’t need this kind of headache. Perhaps her late husband installed it, thinking he was taking good care of their house. Despite paying for the materials and the time to have it installed, sorry to say but it now really needs to come out. Fortunately, one of my recommended insulation contractors was willing to unwrap it for her and re-install the old fiberglass.

Simply put, wrapped fiberglass insulation is not good for the durability of a home. It will allow water vapor to condense and any water in a home where you don’t want or expect it can be a nasty thing. Think mold or rot. Besides, there are so many other good alternatives, like unfaced batts, blown fiberglass, blown cellulose … .

David Rabenau, LEED AP, is a certified HERS rater and BPI-certified building professional (building analyst & envelope). This blog first appeared on blog.smhes.com.

ENERGY STAR: Closing the Design to Performance Loop

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:57:16 -0400

Many commercial building owners and developers are familiar with ENERGY STAR, not just for efficient commercial products and appliances, but also for tracking and measuring energy use in buildings. The ENERGY STAR scoring system gives owners a clear understanding of how well their buildings are operating by ranking energy use against the national population of similar building types. The ranking shows which buildings are performing at peak and which ones require improvements. Over time, as efficiency improvements are made and asset values increase, tracking performance provides owners with quantifiable energy savings and carbon-dioxide-emissions reductions associated with their properties.

Rewind to building design. Building owners have an abundance of information to inform the design process, and architects have the opportunity to gain insight about operating performance of projects they’ve designed once the building is operating. Wouldn’t it be helpful for owners and architects to collaborate and use the same metrics and measurements to target intended energy use during design and then verify the results in the operating building?

Novel concept it seems. It is common practice that the architect’s involvement stops once construction is completed and the building is turned over to the owner. But as momentum for greater efficiency builds, that practice has to evolve. In fact, to achieve energy-efficiency mandates by government and industry directives, such as the 2030 goals, we need continuity between the design process and operating stage.

Thanks to EPA’s energy-performance scale, architects and owners do have consistent metrics to use and share throughout the process. Here are a few ideas about how to close the design to performance loop:

EPA’s ENERGY STAR program provides guidance for architects and owners to start the dialogue about energy from the beginning of design and continue it through occupancy so design intent leads to exemplary performance.

A&E firms can specify enhanced commissioning at the end of construction as part of their contracts with owners. The architect agrees to spend time at the building in the first year of operation to gauge how the design is working, including the building’s energy efficiency. This is a service architects can build into their fee structure, and it provides valuable information about best practices for designing and operating buildings.

A&E firms can go beyond the general terms of the RFP by stating in their proposals that they intend to perform measurement and verification and recommend definitive efficiency goals that the design and operating building should aim to achieve—namely, goals such as those specified by ENERGY STAR.

Architecture firms can include definitive energy targets during the design charrette, which should include the owner. That way, from the start everyone sees the value of and is engaged in creating a building with superior energy performance.

Innovative A&E firms are modeling the primary environmental elements that affect energy in the very early stages of design planning. They then are collaborating with engineers to make informed decisions about the building design. Design matters when it comes to how a building and the people working in that building will use energy. As one architect put it, it isn’t just stuffing the building with equipment or new systems that gets you to your energy efficiency goal; it’s a holistic, integrated, whole-building approach that works best.

Did you know EPA has honored more than 200 projects that achieved Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR certification by receiving a score of 75 or higher (out of 100) on EPA’s energy performance scale? But the true test of efficiency is earning the ENERGY STAR label for the operating building. The process from design to building operations requires time to commission the building and verify the energy use results for at least one year with occupants engaging in their daily activities. Then the owner uses the same energy-performance scale to measure the operating efficiency. To date, the number of Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR projects that have completed the full cycle and earned the ENERGY STAR label for superior efficiency is small but growing. What’s needed now—to reach the industry’s 2030 goals—is for more architects and owners to commit to collaborating at all stages of the process to ensure high efficiency.

To assist architects and owners in producing more-efficient buildings, EPA recently completed an online guide for designing commercial buildings to achieve ENERGY STAR. It provides a start-to-finish framework for architects and building owners to set energy targets for design projects, determine whether projects achieve the desired energy goal and close the loop by verifying the actual performance of completed buildings. Check it out. Your feedback on the guide is welcome!

Karen P. Butler manages Commercial Building Design--EPA ENERGY STAR Program.

Congress Puts Construction Materials under the Microscope

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:13:31 -0400

We are living in exciting and interesting times. Watching how the three branches of the federal government operate and reading about changes to our laws have always been interesting to me. But now, we are watching legislation being written that has a real impact on the construction industry--not just in terms of tax or labor issues but on programs that are very specific to products within our industry.

Historically, the construction industry had to deal with the national code and standards bodies about issues related to energy or performance. That situation got more complicated when states and local municipalities started to adopt their own energy codes and/or standards programs. Now the construction industry faces an even greater challenge when it has to influence Congress because legislation is being written that impacts the use of construction materials.

An excellent example of this is the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This legislation had wide-sweeping measures to address the nation’s energy situation, but it also contained tax incentives that were very specific to certain products. The metal roofing industry enjoyed an exclusive tax credit awarded to homeowners who installed a prepainted ENERGY STAR-labeled cool metal roof. Metal roofing was the only roofing product singled out in the definition of energy-efficient improvements for residential structures. There was a significant effort on the part of the industry to introduce that language into EPAct 05, which launched more specific references to construction products.

The language related to cool metal roofing was then amended somewhat in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 when the tax credits were extended and expanded in scope. Cool granulated asphalt-shingle roofing products were added to the cool metal roofing references in the tax-incentive extensions from previous legislation.

Now amidst the swirl of legislation in Congress about energy, finances, stimulus and climate change, the House of Representatives has introduced a bill aimed at creating incentives to retrofit the built community. Congressman Peter Welch (D-Vt.) has introduced Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance, or REEP, a bill that would fund state and municipal governments to improve the energy performance of existing buildings.

The proposed legislation directs the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop guidelines and manage financing for the national energy-efficiency program. For fiscal years 2010-13, $2.5 billion per year is being proposed for the financial incentives. Homeowners and businesses could qualify for direct-cash incentives, interest-rate subsidies and credit support based on the percentage increase in energy efficiency they achieve.

The legislation is based on the proposal developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance to Save Energy and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

What is interesting in this proposed legislation is that one of the elements of the bill is a requirement that “the building retrofits conducted pursuant to a REEP program, as appropriate especially in all air-conditioned buildings, shall use roofing materials that demonstrate

1. on residential single-family homes and other buildings with slanted roofs

for fiberglass asphalt shingle roofing, an initial solar reflectance of 0.30 or higher
for all other roofing materials, an initial solar reflectance of 0.40 or higher

2. on commercial buildings and all buildings with flat roofs, roofing materials with

an initial solar reflectance of 0.70 or higher
a solar reflectance value three years after installation of 0.55 or higher
a thermal emittance of 0.80 or higher.”

The REEP bill would provide financial incentives for energy reduction as determined by whole-building analyses and provide financial rewards for reducing potable-water usage and using renewable energy. There also are financial incentives for environmental improvements to existing buildings in the area of indoor air quality, natural lighting and renewable materials.

Did you ever think that Congress would be debating criteria for solar reflectance and thermal emittance of roofing in a spending bill? We are witnessing the morphing of voluntary green-building programs with regulatory programs into legislative mandates that could become the law of the land.

Most likely, there will be a call to arms within the construction industry to address the provisions being proposed in legislation. The challenges are becoming greater, stretching the resources of the various trade associations and organizations that represent the construction market.

Who knows? We might someday find ourselves deciding between two candidates running for office based on their knowledge of the impact of roofing and wall assemblies on building’s energy consumption!

Scott Kriner is president of Green Metal Consulting, Macungie, Pa. He is a member of Eco-Logic’s advisory board and available to answer your questions in Sage Advice.

ENERGY STAR: Local Governments Unlock Building-performance Information

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:39:23 -0400

The energy used by U.S. commercial and industrial buildings is responsible for nearly half our national greenhouse-gas emissions, making our built environment one of our best opportunities to increase efficiency and protect the climate. In areas with dense building stock, this figure can be even higher. For example, in New York City nearly 80 percent of citywide emissions result from the electricity, heating and hot water consumed in buildings. The city’s largest buildings—the 22,000 buildings consisting of more than 50,000 square feet—account for roughly 45 percent of the city’s total floor space and energy consumption, according to New York City Greener, Greater Buildings Plan.

Better information about how much energy buildings use and how buildings compare to one another is critical to unlocking the potential for energy savings. As a result, the use of building-level energy-use information as an effective energy-management tool is growing and many communities are looking to ENERGY STAR for gathering this. Almost 15 percent of commercial square footage has been assessed for its efficiency through the end of 2009 using Portfolio Manager, a standardized assessment tool developed and managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A growing number of local governments have taken action to make energy-performance indicators of public and private commercial buildings available to key stakeholders, such as prospective buyers or tenants, government managers or the public, and many are taking action in the form of policy and legislation to get the job done. Below are examples of what three local governments--from communities large and small--are implementing.

Washington, D.C.

The Green Building Act of 2006 went into effect on March 8, 2007, and rolls out green-building requirements for Washington, D.C., building projects during a five-year period, including LEED certification for commercial buildings and Green Communities standards for residential buildings. It also requires district-owned commercial buildings to be “designed to achieve 75 points or higher on the EPA national energy-performance rating scale as determined by the ENERGY STAR Target Finder tool” and benchmarked annually in EPA’s energy-management tool, Portfolio Manager.

To bring to light the efficiency of privately owned commercial buildings, the Clean and Affordable Energy Act of 2008 establishes benchmarking requirements for these buildings. Beginning this year, buildings of 200,000 square feet or more must be benchmarked. Each subsequent year, the size threshold decreases by 50,000 square feet until reaching a minimum requirement of 50,000 square feet in 2013. Annual disclosure will occur via an online database open to the public and administered by the District of Columbia. Disclosure begins for the first class of buildings above 200,000 square feet in 2012.

New York

The city of New York also has passed legislation requiring public buildings and large private buildings to track energy and water consumption using EPA’s Portfolio Manager. As of January, city buildings with more than 10,000 square feet of floor space are required to benchmark energy and water. Private buildings with more than 50,000 square feet of floor space will be required to do so starting in 2011. Benchmarking results for public and private buildings will be disclosed annually in an online database open to the public and administered by the city.

The new legislation is part of the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan, a six-part plan to tackle energy and water efficiency by doing the following:

1) Improving the city energy code

2) Upgrading lighting and sub-metering

3) Benchmarking

4) Performing audits and retro-commissioning

5) Training workers

6) Providing financing for green-building projects

The Greener, Greater Buildings Plan is one of several initiatives under PlaNYC, a comprehensive plan to enhance New York’s urban environment by pursuing 10 key goals across five areas—land, air, water, energy and transportation. Tracking energy and water use in Portfolio Manager and making energy-efficiency improvements will help meet the plan’s goal of reducing the city’s annual GHG emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030.

West Chester, Pa.

Located about 25 miles west of Philadelphia, the borough of West Chester is the first locale in the U.S. to pass a bill requiring buildings to earn the ENERGY STAR. In January 2008, West Chester passed a broad Borough Ordinance pertaining to the energy efficiency of new commercial buildings. The ordinance requires new commercial construction projects to achieve Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR using EPA’s Target Finder tool. Once these buildings are built and in full operation, their energy use must be benchmarked annually in EPA’s Portfolio Manager and earn a minimum energy-performance score of 75 out of 100.

These communities represent just a snapshot of the steps local governments are taking to improve energy efficiency in their jurisdictions. To learn more about state and local efficiency programs and find out how you can help improve energy efficiency in your area, visit www.energystar.gov/government.

Leslie Cook is the public sector program manager for EPA’s ENERGY STAR Commercial and Industrial Buildings program.

This Is Where You Belong. Engaged. Informed. Connected.

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:28:54 -0400

After 30 years at sites around New England, the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association’s Building Energy conference arrived at the Boston World Trade Center in 2005. NESEA named that conference The Practice of Sustainability: Art/Science/Business. And we said this to the NESEA community: If you practice sustainability, this is where you belong!

I see sustainability as a principle equivalent to democracy or justice and a practice we are constantly striving toward--imperfect in execution but aspirationally fundamental. If your practice supports sustainability, you belong to the community that shares this principle and we belong together in Boston in March. I want to invite you to consider how important it is for you to join me at Building Energy 10. This is about the necessity of advancing your practice together with mine.

Narcissism led me to NESEA in the late ‘80s. Building Energy was then called the Advanced Residential Construction Conference, and I concluded that it was most obviously for me. The moment I arrived I knew I had found my tribe. This community made it apparent that the foundation of my ethic to be a “good builder” must always include an understanding of what it meant to be a “green builder.” I could not be one without being the other. The journey had begun.

Like any good journey, it led to discovery. Over time, and not without some resistance, I came to appreciate the practice of sustainability required us to understand and operate as connected parts of a whole system. My provincial practice—building--confined my view.

Our good fortune is that NESEA, considering energy as its fundamental currency and sustainability as our aspirational principle, attracts and symbiotically connects a cosmopolitan breadth of practices, of which mine is only one. I came to appreciate and rely on the diversity of experience and ideas this community continuously challenged me with. And I grew.

On a good day at NESEA I am engaged, informed and connected. I am engaged by ideas that demand I think clearly. I am informed by practitioners with an uncompromising commitment to action and measurable results. I am connected to a diverse network of fellow travelers at every stage of their own journeys and with whom I can differ as easily as I can agree without acrimony. If you practice sustainability this is where you belong--having good days at NESEA with me and the thousands of others who continue to shape what Ambrose Spencer, a Building Energy planning-committee member, so aptly termed our “confident vision.” The journey continues again in Boston in March. I can’t imagine finding my way forward without being there--where I belong.

Please consider joining us at BE10, participating in the blog for the Whole Systems in Action track leading up to and after the conference, fanning BE10 on Facebook and tweeting about BE10 on Twitter using the #BE10 hashtag.

Jamie Wolf is a design evangelist with Wolfworks, Avon, Conn. He has been on NESEA’s board, chaired conferences and now is collaborating on the Whole Systems in Action track of BE10.

Cool Roofing Enters the Climate-change Debate

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:18:33 -0400

There are plenty of conferences about global warming, climate change, energy policy, the environment, etc. So when a notice for yet another conference like this comes across my desk or shows up in my inbox, it takes a special flair to get my attention. One such event was the International Conference on Climate Change, which was held by the Heartland Institute last year.

I know what you’re thinking: Who wants to be spoon-fed more climate-change information from Al Gore’s crew? However, the description of this conference was different. The debate was not whether global climate change was a reality, but rather whether the change is caused by man’s activity.

The one-day conference was held in Washington, D.C., and attracted an audience of more than 200 scientists, engineers, policymakers, politicians and interested citizens. The speaker panel was an impressive collection of professors from MIT, the University of Virginia, University of Alabama and James Cook University; scientists from NASA and NOAA; geologists; congressmen and senators; and dignitaries from Europe.

The purpose of the event was to discuss science and economics surrounding climate change. It boiled down to some key questions for the day:

Does new research indicate the human effect on climate is less than previously thought?

Has there been no warming for the past decade, and does this undermine our confidence in computer climate models?

What would it cost in terms of higher prices for goods and slower economic growth to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions?

Would reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S. have any effect on global temperatures?

In a nutshell, the main themes of the conference could be summed up as:

Natural forces--not mankind--are causing climate change.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

The debate taking place in our society today is political and not based on science.

My interest in attending was based on the assumption increases in anthropogenic (human-induced) greenhouse-gas concentrations is at the center of many of the current activities in regulations and legislation related to how we construct and operate buildings. If we all believe mankind is responsible for and can influence global climate change, then stringent energy codes and standards, green-building initiatives and environmental impact assessments are in order. However, if we believe nature rules the climate, then we would be better served concentrating on how to adapt to the impending changes in our climate.

I took special interest in a discussion about cool roofing. A question was raised about a comment made by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu about the impact of painting all roofs white to mitigate global climate change. Chu had told the London Times the world’s carbon emissions could be significantly lowered by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color. When asked if governments should promote white paint as the global-warming solution, he answered, “Yes, absolutely. … White roofs everywhere, yes.”

Dr. Roy Spencer, director of Climate Research at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, stated he had reviewed the original paper, authored by Dr. Hashem Akbari from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Chu referred to in his comment. Spencer agreed, in general, with the calculations that were made, but he questioned some of the assumptions used for the model.

For example, he wondered whether urban areas of the planet truly cover 1 percent of the Earth’s surface as Akbari assumes, and he questioned the cost/benefit analysis of painting 60 percent of all urban roofs with a reflective paint. Spencer also noted that if a group is even postulating that climate can be changed by something as trivial as painting roof surfaces, it is an admission that the climate is indeed sensitive to changes--many changes.

Regardless of where you stand on the climate-change debate and whether you believe cool roofing can have an impact on the climate, I think saving energy by installing a cool roof is in the best interest of our national security because it can reduce our dependence on oil from unsecured and hostile nations. Saving energy through cool roofs helps building owners save money on utility bills, many of which are rising as caps are being lifted. Cool roofs improve the comfort of the occupants of the building and can work in synergy with insulation to improve the thermal performance of the entire roof system. If we are wrong about cool roofing, why not err on the side of energy independence, cost savings and human comfort?

Scott Kriner is president of Green Metal Consulting, Macungie, Pa. He is a member of Eco-Logic’s advisory board and available to answer your questions in Sage Advice.

Appellate Division Grants Preliminary Injunction Based on Project’s “Revolutionary” Green Construction Financing

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 20:00:53 -0400

In November 2009, in Destiny USA Holdings LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., the Appellate Division for the Fourth Department upheld (in a split 3-2 decision) the Onondaga County Supreme Court’s decision that Destiny, the developer of a highly publicized mega-mall project in Syracuse, N.Y., which is currently seeking LEED Platinum certification from USGBC, was entitled to a preliminary injunction requiring its construction lender, Citigroup, to fund certain pending draw requests under Destiny’s construction loan. 889 N.Y.S.2d 793 (App. Div., 4th Dep’t 2009).

The decision is noteworthy from a green-building legal perspective because the court specifically identified the Destiny project’s sustainable design features--and construction financing, which employed federally-backed Green Bonds--as so “unique” and “revolutionary” that money damages alone would not be sufficient to compensate Destiny if the injunction were denied. This allowed the court to find, under New York law, the potential existed for irreparable harm to Destiny if the project did not move forward while Destiny’s suit against Citigroup for breach of contract was pending.

In New York (like most jurisdictions), one of the elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction is whether there will be irreparable injury to the moving party if the court denies provisional relief. However, if the court can calculate the moving party’s damages with precision, there can be no irreparable injury while the action is pending because the moving party would be adequately compensated by money damages if it were to prevail at trial. The Destiny court, however, found two exceptions to the irreparable injury test based explicitly on the project’s green features. It held that

“an exception is warranted because the Project’s unique character renders it difficult to calculate any damages sustained by Destiny Holdings. Citigroup stated through its managing director at a U.S. Green Building Council Presentation on November 8, 2007 that the Project is a ‘visionary project’ that has created a ‘new financing paradigm for green economic development’ that is ‘revolutionary.’ Citigroup Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Charles Prince called the use of newly-created Federal Green Bonds [created under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and authorizing up to $2 billion in tax-exempt, private activity bonds to be issued by state or local governments for qualified green building and/or sustainable design projects] in financing the Project ‘groundbreaking [and] a step forward in addressing climate change in the U.S. because the Project incorporates sustainable design, energy conservation, and renewable energy sources on a large scale. He further commented that the Project ‘is good for economic development and good for the environment.’ Thus, the unprecedented nature and scope of the Project makes it unique, so that it has no established market value and any damages sustained could not be calculated with reasonable precision.”

The court also found a second exception to the general rule because of the project’s highly touted green features, stating that “Destiny Holdings has established the enormous potential for harm to its reputation and the reputation of the entire ‘Destiny USA’ project. Harm to business reputation is harm for which money damages are insufficient and for which injunctive relief may be appropriate.”

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to infer here that the court was connecting the project’s green features to its “reputation” to carve out another exception to the general rule barring injunctive relief in similar contexts. For both of the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision but modified the order granting the preliminary injunction to require Destiny to post a bond to compel Citigroup’s performance under the loan agreement.

Interestingly, two justices joined in filing a dissenting opinion that ignored the project’s green features. The dissent stated that “there is no support in the record for the majority’s conclusion that an ‘enormous potential’ for harm to the reputation of Destiny Holdings exists, other than the bald assertion of a principal of Destiny Holdings that its reputation would be damaged as a result of its failure to complete the project. The core of the majority’s argument is that the nature of the project makes it unique and thus that Destiny Holdings would be entitled to specific performance [of the construction loan agreement]. While the scope of the Project may be unique to the region in both its size and impact, the record clearly establishes that the [construction loan agreement] itself is simply one to loan money in order to finance construction.”

I think there are a few important things to take from this opinion. First, notwithstanding the Destiny project’s massive scope, the Appellate Division has given owners a basis for arguing that green-building projects--regardless of their financing mechanism--are inherently unique. In the event of any type of dispute, owners or other parties, which might be seeking provisional remedies or are engaged in other motion practice (that, like in Destiny, is unrelated to the project’s green design features), can now rely on appellate authority that green-building projects are different and deserve different treatment under applicable law.

Conversely, the opinion suggests why construction and real-estate attorneys need to be well-versed in the green-building space; if you were asked to oppose a similar motion where the movant was arguing that “green buildings are different,” you would likely want to argue in opposition how, to date, many green-building projects have not resulted in such different outcomes from conventional projects (i.e, by identifying the ongoing LEED performance gap and studies analyzing the alleged rental and asset premium for different types of certified green buildings).

The decision is also important to note from a lender’s perspective. If potential borrowers looking to finance a green-construction project have the ability to argue their projects deserve special treatment in connection with any lending dispute, lenders may consider, for example, revisiting the terms of their construction loans or otherwise pricing this type of risk into the loan itself. Are there other green real estate-related legal issues arising out of this opinion that you might anticipate arising in connection with these types of construction lending disputes?

My thanks to Kevin Garrison of Baker Donelson for forwarding a copy of the Appellate Division’s opinion in this matter to my attention. Either of us would be happy to forward you a copy of the opinion upon request.

Stephen Del Percio currently practices real-estate and construction law at Arent Fox LLP, New York. He holds a degree in civil engineering from Columbia and is a graduate of William & Mary Law School. This blog first appeared on Del Percio’s Green Real Estate Law Journal. He can be contacted at delpercio.stephen@arentfox.com.

Is It Possible to Avoid Wind Turbine Litigation?

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:45:51 -0400

One of the top renewable-energy legal decisions in 2009 has to be the injunction issued on Dec. 8 by U.S. District Judge Roger Titus in Animal Welfare Institute v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC. The ruling halted the construction of a 122-turbine wind project in West Virginia due to the failure to study adequately the impacts of the turbines on the endangered Indiana bat. The case highlights the importance of heeding the formal advisories of agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in the pre-construction evaluation of a project's impacts on local fauna.
Beech Ridge Project
The project obtained its siting certificate in 2006 with the West Virginia Public Service Commission concluding that the evidence before it did not support a conclusion that Indiana bats lived near the project. Following a trial in October 2009, the U.S. District Court in Maryland concluded otherwise and criticized the project's consultant for disregarding the repeated formal advisories of USFWS to conduct multi-year studies using a variety of tools (radar, thermal imaging, acoustical studies, mist-netting and other appropriate sampling techniques) during spring and fall to determine the presence and risks to endangered Indiana bats. The consultants primarily relied on surveys using mist-nets (small-screen fine-mesh nets) conducted during two summer seasons and only incidental, and apparently unintended, collection of acoustical data.
This did not sit well with the judge, who said that the mist-nets, which did not capture any Indiana bats, at best could only establish that the bats were not present in large numbers during the summer, but did not establish absence of the bats at other times of the year.
The acoustic data, which apparently a field technician collected on his own, did not get evaluated until trial and arguably indicated that some Indiana bats might be present. The court relied heavily on this disputed acoustic data to confirm "to a virtual certainty" the presence of Indiana bats and to conclude it is "a virtual certainty that Indiana bats would be harmed, wounded or killed" by the wind project in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
The court reluctantly issued an injunction halting the Beech Ridge project and chided the developer for "disregard[ing] not only repeated advice from the [US]FWS but also fail[ing] to take advantage of a specific mechanism, the [incidental take permit] process, established by federal law to allow their project to proceed in harmony with the goal of avoidance of harm to endangered species."
Had the Beech Ridge project followed the USFWS suggestions and combined acoustic data with the mist net surveys the developer might have been in a position to make a case for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act and to have better evidence to oppose a court challenge. The cautionary tale in all this is that the injunction effectively halted the project, which at the time had poured foundations for the initial 67 turbines, taken delivery on turbines and strung transmission lines.
Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee
In the meantime, the USFWS Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory Committee is preparing a set of recommended measures to reduce or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats related to land-based wind energy facilities. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) lists completion of the Advisory Committee work among its wind power trends for 2010, and the Beech Ridge decision suggests that such draft guidelines, if followed, might be helpful to avoid the harsh results of the case.
The sixth draft issued by a workgroup of the Advisory Committee in late October 2009 proposes a five-tiered approach to wildlife assessment and siting decisions that includes pre-construction evaluation of avian and bat impacts.
The draft guidelines specifically recommend against using mist-netting to assess the presence of bats and birds, in part because it is not feasible at the heights of the rotor-swept zone, and captures below that zone may not adequately reflect risk of fatality. If mist-netting is used, the draft guidelines recommend using it in combination with acoustic monitoring.
Litigation Likely
The Beech Ridge court's critique of the methodologies used in that case lends some credence to the Advisory Committee's draft recommendations. Even, however, as that process works toward final guidelines for approval by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, they may not prove to be a hallmark event in wind power development for 2010 because of the strong likelihood of a court challenge.
Indeed, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the Beech Ridge case wrote a letter earlier in 2009 asking Secretary Salazar to disband the Advisory Committee because its draft recommendations "contain little but vague bromides and generic pronouncements" and "read more as an unabashed endorsement of wind power than a rigorous effort to address the harmful—and ever growing—effects of poorly sited and constructed wind power projects on wildlife." While that letter was written well before the current draft guidelines, it indicates that the final recommendations could well face litigation.
In the absence of implementation of the guidelines, the Beech Ridge case provides a strong signal that it does not pay to ignore or minimize an agency's formal advisories in the pre-construction evaluation of a project.
Michael Nesteroff is a shareholder and chair of the Sustainability & Climate Change team at Lane Powell P.C., Seattle. This blog first appeared on his blog in December 2009. Nesteroff can be reached at nesteroffm@lanepowell.com or through www.lanepowell.com.

ENERGY STAR: A Decade of Energy-efficient Buildings

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:17:36 -0400

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency awarded the first ENERGY STAR to a building in 1999. Celebrate a decade of ENERGY STAR buildings with this excerpt of EPA’s historical retrospective of how it all began, where we are today and a glimpse of the exciting future that lies ahead.
Dawn of the EPA Partnership Program
The 1990s marked an important shift in the U.S. toward greater collaboration on pollution prevention. It was a time when business leaders and environmentalists recognized economic progress and environmental protection can, and must, go hand in hand.
EPA’s innovative approach to addressing climate change through greenhouse-gas reductions took shape in 1991under the banner of EPA’s Green Lights program. Through Green Lights, EPA promoted the use of efficient lighting systems in commercial buildings in situations where they maintained or improved lighting quality and were also profitable. The foundation of the program was a voluntary partnership that outlined a method for participants to follow, required annual reporting of energy savings, and offered a package of technical and marketing tools at no cost.
Debut of the Building Benchmark
With the momentum established by Green Lights, EPA moved beyond lighting to capture substantial additional savings by improving the energy efficiency of the whole building. EPA realized the real savings lay not just in technologies but in the interaction of the various building systems. Modeling software had shown buildings could reduce their energy use by 30 percent through efficiency improvements. Results from a study of 20 showcase buildings revealed that despite using the same whole-building approach, some buildings logged 50 percent savings while others only showed 12 percent. But what did that mean?
At the time, there was no way to objectively compare—or benchmark—the performance of one building to another. EPA turned to an existing inventory of commercial-building energy use to develop comparative metrics for evaluating performance. Using these comparative metrics, program officials realized the “very successful” building that cut its energy use in half still had above-average energy use. Even more surprising, the “less successful” building with the modest 12 percent savings was actually performing well above the average building. Moreover, the inventory revealed a wide distribution of energy performance between the best and worst performers, making a comparative metric even more important given such a large spectrum.
The results of the showcase building study represented a major turning point; it was clear organizations needed to measure real energy use to manage it and make sense of those measurements within an objective context.
New Tools of the Trade
After the ENERGY STAR program introduced the first labeled products, the Green Lights program evolved into EPA’s new whole-building program: ENERGY STAR for Buildings. By 1999, EPA emerged with an entirely new method and three new tools to encourage and assist organizations in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions:
The Portfolio Manager software tool, which would become the engine of the ENERGY STAR Buildings program, allowed organizations to measure, track and compare the energy use of all of their buildings online with just a few clicks using their own private account.

The ENERGY STAR energy-performance scale assigned a score between 1 and 100, which indicated how a building performed relative to similar buildings nationwide. The scores were automatically adjusted using standardized methods to take into account differences in building attributes, operating characteristics and weather variables.

The ENERGY STAR label provided recognition from EPA for those buildings that scored a 75 or higher, meaning they performed better than 75 percent of similar buildings nationwide. Certifications of performance and adherence to indoor air quality standards were also required to earn the ENERGY STAR label.
With the debut of its three new tools, which still are in effect today, EPA introduced an entirely new way of testing efficiency and defining performance. This new approach allowed organizations to gauge the performance of all their buildings easily and at low cost, prioritize investment opportunities, learn from the best and verify the savings of their actions.
An ENERGY STAR is Born
History was made in January 1999 when EPA awarded the first ENERGY STAR to a 17-year-old, 74,000-square-foot municipal office building in San Diego. During the following decade, thousands of buildings followed suit, resulting in substantial GHG-emission reductions.
Early analyses of ENERGY STAR office buildings proved their financial and environmental value. ENERGY STAR-labeled buildings consistently use, on average, 35 percent less energy than their peers and emit 35 percent less carbon dioxide. Studies documented significant direct financial savings from reduced energy use and persistent savings from improvements in energy performance.
A Decade of Growth
Following EPA’s early success in the office building market, the agency tackled more than a dozen new commercial sectors. EPA also established energy performance indicators for various manufacturing industries and facilities, such as automobile assembly plants. Early champions, such as Hines, Arden Realty, Food Lion, Giant Eagle, JCPenney, Marriott, and the cities of San Diego and Louisville, were instrumental in the program gaining wider acceptance.
The transparent, Web-based method EPA built to deliver the ENERGY STAR energy-performance scale has enabled a new industry of service and product providers to help deliver the program and improve the performance of the market. Utilities retrieve and transfer important commercial building consumption information. State and local governments, energy-efficiency program sponsors and industry groups use it to evolve policies, voluntary programs and frameworks that might never before have been possible.
The value of an ENERGY STAR score has grown with the passage of time and delivery of energy efficiency to the commercial-building sector. An ENERGY STAR score is a quick, objective assessment, easily understood by the marketplace. Today, the energy performance of more than 120,000 buildings representing nearly 14 billion square feet has been measured through ENERGY STAR. More than 5,000 organizations have joined ENERGY STAR as building partners. Nearly 9,000 buildings have earned the ENERGY STAR. And, finally, ENERGY STAR partners in the commercial marketplace have helped prevent GHG emissions equal to the electricity use of 60 million American homes a year.
A Bright Future
Now, 10 years since the introduction of the ENERGY STAR label for buildings and 18 years since the inception of Green Lights, the ENERGY STAR approach to energy efficiency and GHG-emissions reductions remains unchanged. It is still rooted in the power of collaborative partnerships, importance of high-level organizational commitment, value of a good plan, consistent and objective way to measure real-world consumption and savings on a continuous basis, and recognition.
An exciting future lies ahead for the ENERGY STAR program. Improvements to Portfolio Manager will enhance its value as an energy-management tool and important nexus of climate, energy and green-building policies. Growing use of Portfolio Manager will enrich this extensive pool of real-world commercial building data.
ENERGY STAR will continue to expand to new markets, thereby creating greater opportunities for carbon savings. Organizations will continue to use ENERGY STAR as a platform for their energy-efficiency efforts and be better positioned as a result to address future climate policies, reporting requirements and regulations.
Finally, a new emphasis on the role everyone plays in improving the energy efficiency of the places where we work, play and learn will deliver greater consumer awareness, thus driving increased demand for energy efficiency. As the next decade dawns, more buildings across America will proudly bear EPA’s ENERGY STAR label, marking a greater future for us all.
Maura Beard is the strategic communications director for EPA’s ENERGY STAR Commercial and Industrial Buildings program. She has more than 18 years’ experience in public affairs and strategic communications, public policy and public administration.

Green Labels: Who’s Next?

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:17:21 -0400

We’ve all seen the following green labels and evaluation tools for products:
Cradle to Cradle
Smart-certified
ecoScoreCard
GreenFormat
UL Environmental Claims Validation
GoodGuide
ENERGY STAR
Pharos
GreenSpec
Soon, even:
WalMart Eco-label
This is actually just a short list of all the rating systems and evaluation tools available for products on the market today. Conduct your own Internet search and you’ll be shocked at how many there are and what diverse organizations are creating them.
What does this mean for us both as design professionals and end-user consumers? Confusion. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? How are the claims and ratings measured? What scientific basis has each used? What about total life-cycle analysis? Even more important: Who gets to decide?
These are some of the questions that will need to be considered for the future of our design and construction industry. With so many standards to choose from and potentially so much disagreement about which group’s rating systems should be used to determine building environmental evaluations, it will only become more difficult to continue applying building rating systems.
There have already been many arguments between scientific groups and designers about which rating systems are appropriate and which are based on the real issues relating to the environment. Some of these arguments have been the reason for the development of life-cycle analysis and life-cycle cost analysis, which have very different review methods and, therefore, different benefits and drawbacks.
USGBC/LEED claims that it will be converting into a more detailed life-cycle analysis process as part of its future evaluation methods. This sounds like the right thing to do to be truly environmentally conscious. Initially, my firm thought this would be one of the strongest revisions to LEED v3.0–2009, but it didn’t end up being developed enough to be fully implemented. Until then, we’ll wait with everyone else to see where it lands.
I will be writing a future article about product rating systems and evaluation tools, such as LCA and LCCA, for Eco-Logic. If you have specific questions or concerns you’d like me to address, please comment below.
Dale A. Anderson, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP, CSBA, EDAC, is a principal of BCRA, Tacoma, Wash.

ENERGY STAR: Thinking about Energy Modeling

Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:18:13 -0400

At the recent U.S. Green Building Council’s Greenbuild Conference in Phoenix, I attended a session that dealt with energy modeling and how well energy is analyzed during the design process.
What a lively discussion it was! One panelist commented, “Energy modeling makes architects do dumb things.” Someone else exclaimed, “Energy modeling is based on perfect assumptions, and modeling as we know it deals with mechanical systems quite well but not the people and occupancy schedules in buildings.”
There seemed to be general agreement that energy modeling was designed to do trade-offs of equipment efficiencies for code compliance, not be a predictor of absolute or relative energy efficiency. Another recurring point was architects seldom have clearly defined energy-performance goals to use during the design process.
What Are We Measuring?
The nation’s buildings use $200 billion worth of electricity and natural gas each year. And the energy consumed by U.S. commercial and industrial buildings is responsible for nearly 50 percent of our national greenhouse-gas emissions. As our industry moves forward in designing, constructing and operating greener buildings, we must deliver on the promise that these buildings will indeed save energy, benefit the owner’s bottom line and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
What exactly should designers be measuring and how can we set and achieve the goal of saving energy and shrinking the carbon footprint of the built environment?
Let’s start with how energy performance is assessed during the design process. Energy modeling for code compliance, documented in study after study, indicates modeling to code is not a good predictor of performance. Meeting code requires evaluating equipment and system efficiencies but does not account for the entire energy use in buildings. That involves people. This may be a little unnerving for modelers who want to have complete control over their energy-load assumptions, but the reality is people occupy buildings and engage in multiple activities that affect energy use.
Process and plug loads are considered “unregulated” loads in most energy codes but need to be factored into the design team’s equation. All those little energy-sucking gadgets people plug in at their desks consume energy! Real-world scenarios require our attention if we are ever going to design buildings with the potential to save energy as modeled or predicted.
From now on, the energy metrics for design should account for all the variables required to put a building into service. These variables include computers, process loads for cooking, and equipment and system loads for keeping people comfortable. Whole-building energy analysis includes all systems, schedules, and plug and process loads; it defines the parameters for a comprehensive energy model.
The second part of the equation is having something to compare the modeled assumption against—a baseline of actual performance, not just a reference specified by the energy code where all variables are tightly controlled. Such a baseline can be derived from similar buildings in similar climate zones with similar operating characteristics. Energy consumption from a group of similar elementary schools is a better indicator of performance for a similar K-12 project than trade-offs for equipment and systems mandated for code compliance.
In a study at the University of California, Merced, engineers developed what was termed “benchmark-based performance targets” for a series of new buildings. They measured the energy use of existing buildings over time, evaluated building materials and systems, observed occupancy patterns and used the information to develop targets for future building projects. The methodology used in the UC Merced study was a thoughtful means to designing buildings with the intent to achieve energy-performance goals once they are operating. The objective was not to merely meet code nor achieve accolades; the UC engineers were seeking to design buildings to an efficiency level beyond what was typical or average for their campus facilities.
From Designing to Operating the Building
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR, a companion program to EPA’s successful existing buildings program. The name implies the goal of the initiative. A design project that meets the criteria established by EPA achieves this distinction. EPA’s energy-performance rating, which was initially developed to compare an existing building to a group of its peers, was retooled to help architects establish targets for design projects based on actual energy-consumption data (the baseline mentioned earlier).
Then as the design is developed and energy modeling is performed, the total estimated energy use can be plugged into EPA’s tool, and the design receives an estimated rating from 1 to 100. This rating provides a relative performance score of how well the design compares to a group of its peers. The rating is predicated on whole-building energy use.
For architects and building owners committed to helping our nation “green” future buildings, the easy-to-use, online EPA energy-performance rating system provides a relative performance goal, rating for design projects and existing buildings, and consistent metrics for the life-cycle of the building.
These metrics provide the design team with realistic energy intent to pass on to the building owner who, in turn, can measure the energy consumption of the operating building using the same efficiency rating. The metrics associated with the rating are typical of those found on utility bills and familiar to all involved in designing and operating commercial buildings. The rating system developed by EPA’s ENERGY STAR program provides a feedback loop between architects and owners that can close the performance gap between building design and operations. And it helps address the issues posed by the participants at the energy modeling session during Greenbuild!
Karen P. Butler manages Commercial Building Design for the U.S. EPA’s ENERGY STAR Program.

Utility Energy Audits Compared to a Performance-testing Audit

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:48:10 -0400

I recently was made aware of the following letter written by John C. Lepore of Bernardston, Mass., and published in the Boston Globe:
Who is making sure our “public’’ utilities are really improving our energy conservation? (“Utilities support energy savings,’’ Oct. 8).
MassSave has not improved energy conservation. Their “energy audits’’ are far from effective and they are not sharing any real data to support it. I know. They audited my home and said it was already as good as it could be; gave me a little weather stripping, a couple of light bulbs and patted me on the back for doing a “great job!’’
Then I sought out a home performance assessment by a private firm with highly trained professionals that does not sell energy. I am seeing far greater savings and a plan for saving me even more.
MassSave is another example of how the utilities are “saving us.’’ Where is the evidence that their weatherization works?
In general, most utility-sponsored home energy audits are designed with several objectives:
To show a customer how he or she uses energy in the home

To demonstrate how the customer’s energy use compares to other similar homes giving him an idea of the opportunities for improving his energy efficiency

To inform the customer about incentives and/or tax credits that may be available to help him with energy improvements
At Progress Energy Carolinas, we provide interested customers with a Customized Home Energy Report. The report is customized with modules of information, depending on how the customer answers questions concerning his or her energy usage. For example:
If a customer has a 15-year-old HVAC system, he would get a module showing him potential savings and rebates for replacing the system with a more efficient one.

If a customer has a 12-year-old refrigerator, he would get a module about the savings associated with replacing it with an Energy Star model.
Most utility audits don’t provide diagnostic or performance testing that can identify hidden problems--usually in the building envelope or duct system--that may be causing high-energy usage. These performance-testing audits usually utilize diagnostic equipment, such as the following:
Blower doors

Duct blasters

Infrared cameras
The performance-testing audits are usually much more expensive than a utility audit but also provide much more detailed information to the customer.
It is important to understand both utility audits and performance-testing audits serve a useful purpose for the customer, but it is up to the customer to decide which type of audit will best meet his or her individual needs.
Hal Lowrance is supervisor of residential energy efficiency with Progress Energy Carolinas.

Simple Solutions Won't Work Alone; Comprehension Is the True Agent of Change

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:36:54 -0400

There's so much information available today about what's bad for the environment--and better for it--that a greater number of people can discern between their green and not-so-green lifestyle habits. What's more, plenty of people will admit to them. My sister, for example, admits to using paper napkins despite a general awareness that using cloth napkins would save trees. She doesn't hate trees. It's just that she believes that paper napkins better suit her needs. And I have a suspicion that she doesn't know enough about the impacts of disposable paper products to compel her to change.
Like millions of others, my sis is not yet willing to give something up that she's grown accustomed to or fond of, even though she knows it's wrong and the solution she's chosen to ignore is a simple one. I believe people fail to make even the simplest changes because being told to do something is not nearly as effective as getting all the facts so we can make fully informed, educated decisions about our actions. In other words, we need to complicate the argument if people are going to be compelled to change.
Helping people stop doing something they've done for years requires more than introducing them to a new way. It requires an explanation of ecological and economic considerations--not to instill guilt but reason. Usually, the habits we've fallen into aren't completed using reason--they've become an automatic behavior we no longer think about. To break a bad habit--a non-addictive one, anyway--requires interrupting a mindless ritual with consciousness that allows us to focus on not just what we can do, but how much more advantageous a new behavior can be. The bottom line is we can accomplish a lot more when using our heads.
Take the example of my sister's paper-napkin habit: I recently asked her why she prefers paper napkins. Her reasons are as follows:
1. They are easy to grab and easy to throw away.
2. For messy eaters, paper is better because when one gets soiled you just grab a new one.
3. They are cheap.
I try not to give my family unsolicited advice, but when my sister agreed to answer my questions, she opened the door for me! This was my chance to give her more to think about to bring about that simplest of conversions from paper to cloth.
Hold-out Reason No. 1: Paper napkins are easy to grab and easy to throw away. If you switch to cloth napkins, you would presumably keep them in the kitchen--where you eat--and therefore, it would be no easier to grab a paper version than a cloth version at meal time. Paper is "easy to throw away," but it's precisely because paper napkins are disposable that you can run out of them just when you need them. But most importantly, their disposability is what makes them so bad for the planet. For example: Natural forests are being destroyed at an unsustainable pace and tree farms that replace a small percentage of them do not mimic a forest's critical ecological function. Pulp and paper mills require huge inputs of chemicals, energy and water. They are also among the worst polluters to air, water and land of any industry in the country. Rapidly discarded paper represents a huge percentage of the waste stream, and paper napkins and towels in particular have zero chance of getting recycled.
Hold-out Reason No. 2: Paper napkins are better for messy eaters. Paper is better for messy eaters because you can soil one and go right to the next and to the next? Actually, this scenario demonstrates how unsuitable paper napkins are for the messy eater! If you need two or three paper napkins to get through a meal, they are clearly inadequate for the job. One cloth napkin will last through the messiest meal.
Hold-out Reason No. 3: Paper napkins are cheap. Paper napkins are not cheaper than cloth. My sister's household probably uses close to 2,000 paper napkins a year at a cost of around $30. Thirty dollars could also buy around one dozen cloth napkins--a one-time purchase. (You could make your own for much less.) My sister's paper-napkin habit has already cost her more than $250 this decade! In her lifetime, she'll spend thousands of dollars on paper napkins and paper towels if she doesn't kick the habit soon.
Whatever wasteful, un-green habits you are clinging to, don't limit yourself by only considering what is better behavior. Find out why it is better--for you and the Earth. The answer can be much more persuasive than the over-simplified argument of "do this, not that."
Crissy Trask is a speaker, writer and consultant, helping people discover and pursue a more eco-conscious way of life. This blog first appeared on her Web site, www.greenmatters.com. Crissy’s book, It’s Easy Being Green, A Handbook for Earth-Friendly Living, is a favorite resource of Eco-Logic Founder Christina Koch.

The Spirit of Greenbuild

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:24:43 -0400

Last week I attended my seventh-consecutive Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, and I have to admit this year’s event was extra special for me personally. The show afforded me my first opportunity to get out in front of a large sampling of the green-building industry and share what Eco-Logic is all about. As most of you probably know, I previously attended Greenbuild representing a nationally circulated magazine geared toward architects in the green-building space. That magazine helped me find my passion in this industry and inspired me to go out on my own and report about topics that are covered less frequently—the nuts and bolts of a green building, the practical solutions, the decisions and concessions that are made during the design and construction process and after. These stories are less glamorous than showcasing the beautiful completed building, but they certainly are not less important, especially now when misinformation and confusion abound.
As I walked into the Phoenix Convention Center for the first time on Wednesday morning, I wondered how people would receive the site. Would they think I was crazy to take this chance in the worst economy since the Depression? What ideas would they have to improve the site? Would they support Eco-Logic with content and contacts? The butterflies were fluttering in my stomach! But the moment I stepped onto the show floor, I felt at home. I was greeted with more hugs than handshakes. Kind words and encouragement were offered by those I knew well and those I didn’t. I even was cheered on by some of my former competitors in the publishing industry. And I didn’t expect the strangers who would overhear what I was talking about and wait to ask more about Eco-Logic and how they could sign up for the newsletter or find the site. That was extremely rewarding!
Every year, the Greenbuild show has been extremely motivational for me. It allows me to reconnect with old friends and make new ones. It provides hundreds of story ideas, impressive products and invaluable lessons. (Take a look at some of the innovative products I saw at the show, which were highlighted in the latest newsletter.) But I think this year provided the extra encouragement I needed to keep Eco-Logic focused and growing.
For a moment while in Phoenix, I wished I could bottle the energy I was feeling. But then I quickly realized that energy comes from the people who attend Greenbuild and, like me, believe in making the world a better place through buildings. That spirit and drive is represented every day in what each of us does for a living, and—if an extra spark is needed—everyone who attended Greenbuild is only a phone call away!

Innovation from the Past and Nature

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:59:26 -0400

We’re clearly in the most intense green revolution since the oil embargo of the 1970s. Some might think this frenzy of activity to reduce our impact on the environment is new and can only be addressed with 21st century innovation. My recent visit to the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., quickly reminded me how wrong that assumption can be.
The Green Community exhibit at the museum provided an interesting look into the history of green practices that are common today. The quote that caught my eye was: “The human race is challenged more than ever before to demonstrate our mastery--not over nature but of ourselves.” I was surprised to see this was not a recent quote but one made by Rachel Carson in 1962.
I was reminded that many of today’s green solutions to climate, water and sustainable existence are nothing new to mankind. A timeline in the museum points out that in 80 A.D., the Roman Senate required water to be stored during dry periods. In 1510, Leonardo da Vinci designed a horizontal water wheel to prove the principle of water turbines. In 1690, Colonel William Penn required Pennsylvania settlers to preserve 1 acre of trees for every 5 acres that were cleared. In 1762, Benjamin Franklin led a committee to regulate waste disposal and water pollution. The first mechanical windmill water pump was invented in 1854. And in 1861, Professor Augustine Mouchot of France patented a solar pump.
It was also amazing to learn about the amount of waste cities around the world generate. The U.S. recycles approximately 32 percent of its trash, which translates into 4.6 pounds per capita. Americans discard 96 billion pounds of food each year. Restaurants and grocery stores throw out $30 billion of food annually. This incredible amount of discarded food was the basis for the formation of a national group called the Freegans. One mission of the Freegans is to salvage discarded food and provide it to food banks in cities across the country.
I left the museum with the feeling that we can do better in the building-construction industry regarding the innovation of sustainable products. We must remember in nature there is no waste. To be truly sustainable, our industry needs to create and build with products that do not end up as waste. There already are some products in other industries that actually mimic nature:
Greeting cards that can be buried after their use. No trees are destroyed when making the cards because they are made from paper waste and embedded with seeds of flowers or herbs that sprout when the card is buried.
Pressed paperboard clothes hangers that replace wire or plastic hangers. GreenHeart Global estimates 3.5 billion wire clothes hangers and 8 billion plastic ones end up in landfills each year.
High-end biodegradable dinnerware made from steamed, heated and pressurized palm leaves is now available. Before you laugh, you should know plates, bowls and trays made from this material now are the “china” used in the luxury boxes at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium.
An alternative to expanded polystyrene packaging materials has been developed using rice hulls and mushrooms.
The idea of mimicking nature is referred to as biomimicry. There is biomimicry research and innovation occurring in the construction industry today. For example, there are self-cleaning coatings available that are based on the nanoscale bumps on a lotus plant’s leaves. The carpet industry has used biomimicry to develop alternatives to conventional adhesives. Researchers are learning how to modify building designs for thermal comfort based on studying termites, which can maintain constant temperatures inside a building no matter the outside temperature. Scientists are studying the web silk of spiders for possible applications in construction fibers or cabling. Other research has proposed adhesive glue from studying mussels, solar cells made like leaves and water harvesting from fog similar to how a beetle does it.
Where will tomorrow’s building materials come from? Will they have a lower impact on the environment than today’s materials? Where will we look to find the inspiration for these innovations? We certainly can learn from our predecessors about innovation. We can examine how necessity was the mother of invention.
We can also learn from nature. A closer examination of our environment can show how things naturally stick together, gather and distribute energy, cool, shed and retain water, insulate, provide strength, remain clean, repair and are reused. At the end of a product’s life in nature it often becomes food for another process in nature. This is a lesson in sustainable building practices, as well.
Tomorrow’s roof and wall assemblies will likely feature biobased sealants, adhesives, insulators, coatings, reusable attachment techniques and innovative new products. The end result should be a more sustainable design without compromising the structural and/or functional performance of the assembly. As the green community says, we have no choice but to Reduce, Reuse, Rethink and Recycle to sustain the use of components in the construction industry.
Scott Kriner is president of Green Metal Consulting, Macungie, Pa. He is a member of Eco-Logic’s advisory board and available to answer your questions in Sage Advice.

ENERGY STAR: Uncovering Our Greatest Energy Resource

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:50:52 -0400

America’s existing stock of commercial buildings and industrial plants consumes 50 percent of the energy used in this country. In the process, buildings emit nearly half of our nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions. According to industry experts, GHG emissions from buildings are projected to grow nearly 2 percent per year—faster than any other sector.
Ready for some good news? International consulting firm McKinsey & Co. identified energy efficiency as a vast, low-cost resource in its 2009 report, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy.” The firm predicts the U.S. has the potential to reduce end-use energy consumption by 23 percent in 10 years, at a savings of more than $1.2 trillion. To achieve this, the firm says, we must overcome perceived barriers. We need to start looking at energy efficiency as one of our most important energy resources. Then we must foster innovation and share best practices that can unlock the full potential of this resource.
That’s a big-picture solution to a big-picture problem. Where does a solution like that begin? What are others doing to make strides toward greater efficiency? This is something that we at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hope to share with you through our series of monthly columns here at Eco-Logic. We will bring you stories and insights from our commercial and industrial energy-efficiency program, ENERGY STAR, as well as from our commercial building design program, Designed to Earn the ENERGY STAR.
ENERGY STAR for Buildings
When you think of ENERGY STAR, you probably think about refrigerators, dishwashers, computers and other energy-efficient products. But the ENERGY STAR also denotes the nation’s most energy-efficient buildings, and within that framework, EPA offers businesses and organizations strategic and technical guidance and resources to help them transform their buildings into top performers. On the design side, we work with architects and engineers to identify, recognize and drive demand for commercial-building designs that are intended to operate at ENERGY STAR levels once built.
The basis of the ENERGY STAR platform is energy benchmarking, whereby the energy use of a building can be measured and tracked over time. Trying to improve a building’s energy performance without knowing how it’s actually performing is like trying to lose weight without a scale. Benchmarking gives you the objective guidance you need to set goals and track progress. All this can be done through EPA’s energy benchmarking tool, Portfolio Manager. Eligible building types also can get an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100, which tells them how their performance compares to similar buildings nationwide. Buildings that earn a 75 or higher are eligible to earn EPA’s ENERGY STAR.
This month, in the spirit of fostering innovation and sharing best practices, we want to share some of the accomplishments from the past year as told through the successes of our partners. The ENERGY STAR Commercial and Industrial program has more than 5,000 partners from private industry and state and local governments. Some, like Toyota, have been partners since 1992, while others, like the St. Louis Cardinals and the city of New York, are relative newcomers, acting quickly to get their own strategic energy-management programs up and running.
Toyota: Steady as She Goes
There are some that view energy efficiency as something to be addressed when designing a new building or when planning a one-time energy-efficiency retrofit to an existing building. Toyota’s story shows another way to think about energy efficiency—as an ongoing management process. Toyota has found ways to improve energy efficiency every year since becoming an ENERGY STAR partner. In 2008, Toyota North America reduced its absolute energy use by more than 7 percent compared to 2007. It also has placed an emphasis on sharing its expertise with other manufacturers and suppliers. Last year, the company developed a transformative supplier program to teach its suppliers how to conduct plant energy-savings assessments known as “Treasure Hunts.” During its first training session, the group identified 95 energy-saving opportunities for these companies!
St. Louis Cardinals: Hitting it Out of the Ballpark
The entertainment industry caught the green bug last year and the St. Louis Cardinals, led by a dedicated and driven facilities manager, has emerged as a pioneer in energy efficiency within Major League Baseball. In an effort to share best practices and engage members of this industry, the Cardinals started an energy benchmarking group. By May, more than one-third of all MLB teams were participating in the benchmarking group by entering the monthly energy-use data for their stadiums into EPA’s Portfolio Manager energy-tracking tool and then sharing it with other members in the group. By having data about how their own stadiums were performing and being able to compare it to the performance of others in the league, stadium managers can effectively assess their own needs for improvement. And by hearing about what energy-efficiency measures the facility managers at other stadiums have done and being able to see the results for themselves, group members can identify and prioritize improvements.
City of New York: Leading the Charge
Another trend we’ve seen during the past year has been the adoption of the ENERGY STAR platform among state, county and city governments. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed the ENERGY STAR partnership letter in 2009 as part of his PlaNYC initiative, a 25-year plan for enhancing the sustainability of New York City. City officials found that partnership with ENERGY STAR was a key component of their energy and climate-change goals. Additionally, the entire New York City public school system is currently benchmarking the energy use of all its buildings in Portfolio Manager. It has been an exciting couple of years as more and more organizations realize that energy efficiency is the fastest and single most cost-effective solution to our climate and energy crisis. All those engaged in the design, construction or operation of our commercial and industrial buildings stand poised to jump on these opportunities. We look forward to reporting on your achievements in the coming months. You can also follow our latest happenings on Twitter (twitter.com/EnergyStarBldgs) or visit us online at energystar.gov/buildings.
Lauren Pitcher is a communications specialist in the ENERGY STAR Commercial & Industrial Buildings Program.

"Different" Books for the Auditor

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:47:14 -0400

By David Rabenau, LEED AP, Certified HERS Rater, BPI-Certified Building Professional (Building Analyst & Envelope)
These three books are only “different” in the sense that you won’t see them on a typical booklist for the residential energy professional. Yet they’re three of my most valued books, and I find myself referring to at least one of them on a weekly basis.
Warning: You have to like buildings to like these books. If you like everything about buildings, construction and building science, you’ll love these books.
How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built by Stewart Brand (Penguin Books, 1994). A popular architecture book by the creator of The Whole Earth Catalog, this book is a work of genius in its depth of thought and awareness of what buildings try to tell us. If nothing else, this book will change the way you look at a every new home you meet, providing you a kind of detailed and philosophical framework that I think is necessary for excellent building analysis. It is easily the best book I have ever read about buildings, their architecture, their use and their interaction in the larger scheme of their environment.
Renovation 3rd Edition by Michael W. Litchfield (The Taunton Press, 2005). Thoroughly updated, this book is an absolutely great reference for any kind of renovation or remodeling work in virtually any home you’ll encounter. Although I use it as a reference, it would probably also serve as a primer to those new to construction, particularly in helping the auditor know what’s possible and in helping to write specifications. Here is the book's chapter list:
* Inspecting a House * Planning * Tools * Building Materials * Roofs * Doors, Windows and Skylights * Exteriors * Structural Carpentry * Masonry * Foundations and Concrete * Electrical Wiring * Plumbing * Kitchens and Baths * Energy Conservation and Air Quality * Finish Surfaces * Tiling * Finish Carpentry * Painting * Wallpapering * Flooring
All About Old Buildings: The Whole Preservation Catalog by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, edited by Diane Maddex (The Preservation Press, 1985). Unfortunately, this book is out of print, but it can be found in many libraries. Used copies still can be purchased quite cheaply at online booksellers. Some of its entries are out of date, but the book is full of great photos, stories and resources. Whenever I wonder if there is a resource for this or that, this is the second place I turn (after doing an online search). The book is a "whole Earth catalog" for buildings, construction and preservation.

Don’t Forget Joe Consumer

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:10:52 -0400

I’ve been thinking a lot about consumer education lately.
For example, last Thursday I was walking to Chicago’s Navy Pier and passed an advertisement on a bus stop. The ad, which was for a local Web site, featured a quote written by a local. It said, “I’m all for global warming if it means the city won’t get so darn cold.” I understand the ad is supposed to intrigue Chicagoans who already are feeling the chilliness of fall set in. However, I know there are people who really believe that the misnomer “global warming” is a good thing. And ads like this one only perpetuate that mindset.
Here’s another example: In August, I attended a press conference held at the Airports Going Green conference in Chicago. Mayor Richard M. Daley and Department of Aviation Commissioner Rosemarie Andolino led the conference. Major media representatives were in attendance, supposedly to ask questions about SAM, the Sustainable Airports Manual Daley and Andolino had just unveiled. SAM offers airports all over the world the opportunity to implement green strategies and technologies into their design, civil and structural engineering, and construction based on the lessons the O’Hare Modernization Program has learned during the past several years.
However, the reporters from the major networks were more concerned about biodegradable containers used in food service. (Concessions and Tenants will be one chapter in SAM.) The reporters wanted to know: Will a burger in such a container cost consumers more? Where will airports biodegrade these containers and wrappers? Does the FAA allow these containers to biodegrade on-site? Seriously, there had to have been at least five questions about biodegradable containers! I raised my hand to steer the conversation back to buildings and land use. However, I couldn’t help but think on my train-ride home that if the national media doesn’t understand how buildings contribute to climate change—to the point where they can’t ask intelligent questions about buildings--then a lot of consumers won’t be given the opportunity to understand either.
As part of the green-building industry, you and I can easily repeat the statistics about how much energy and water our nation’s buildings consume, but it doesn’t seem to me that Joe Consumer has ever heard these statistics. I guess I had thought (or maybe hoped) the Obama administration’s emphasis on energy efficiency and the available tax rebates and other incentives to improve the efficiency of buildings would help most consumers understand their buildings impact the environment. Is there a disconnect about why these incentives are offered to them? Would most consumers rather ignore taking steps toward better efficiency because humans, in general, don’t like changing their routines—whether that means recycling, driving less or choosing windows with a better U-value even though they’re not the cheaper ones? Is it a matter of educating consumers beyond first cost? Or, worst of all, are consumers thinking: “This climate-change thing isn’t going to happen in my lifetime. Let the next generations deal with it.”? (Believe me, I’ve heard that one!)
I want to hear from you. What aren’t we doing right when it comes to educating consumers? What needs to change? How can we, as the Eco-Logic community, educate the people around us without appearing to be know-it-alls? After all, if consumers are educated about their buildings’ impacts, it will make your jobs designing, constructing and operating those buildings easier.
Share your thoughts or things you have done to educate your friends, neighbors and communities. I, for one, will follow your lead!

Collecting More Data Isn't the Answer

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:14:44 -0400

By Larry Spielvogel, P.E.
The U.S. Green Building Council's Aug. 26 press release about its Building Performance Initiative implies that a large-scale collection of energy data from LEED buildings will improve energy performance. This suggests a response to escalating criticism about the actual energy use of LEED-certified buildings compared with all others. Why do few published stories about these buildings include metered energy and water use data? If these buildings can waste energy efficiently, perhaps one answer is not to include those measures that allow that to happen.
The reality is that neither predicted nor actual measured energy use determines whether a building is energy efficient. Nor does energy use alone determine whether a building meets or exceeds all required or desired criteria or provide the accountability necessary to achieve those results.
I have been collecting and evaluating detailed metered and measured building energy performance data for 40 years. Collecting the data is one thing, even if done completely and correctly. However, evaluating the data and then making comparisons among buildings is something else. Buildings alone do not use energy. The occupants, operators and systems do.
In an extreme case, look at apartment buildings where each apartment is identical, and the metered energy use per apartment can easily vary by two or three to one, or more. Individually metered floors in office buildings occupied by the same company or tenant also can vary by two or three to one.
The functions in a building can also have a major influence on building energy use. The presence of a laundry in a hotel or hospital can make a 25 to 50 percent difference in total building energy use per bed, room or square foot compared with an identical building on the same street.
Buildings with intermittent occupancy present similar dilemmas. How does one estimate, predict or compare the energy data for two identical churches on the same block built at the same time when one is only occupied for a few hours each Sunday and on some holidays and the other is occupied most days of the week?
Comparing metered energy use to modeled energy data is not a valid measurement of anything. If the modeling and estimating methods were sufficiently accurate, utility companies would not require the use of meters.
Some articles I wrote 25 years ago show apartment by apartment or office floor by office floor metered energy-use data in the same building. For another good example, look at the range of energy data for any given building type shown in the statistically significant quadrennial CBECS reports, collected at a cost in eight figures.
That reminds me of an energy research project 35 years ago during the 1970’s energy crisis. The U.S. Postal Service spent hundreds of thousand of dollars instrumenting and recording the detailed energy use in a large postal facility. The conclusion was that they could collect lots of data.
The answer in evaluating and comparing energy data is using professional judgment and experience. That involves knowing and understanding not only the energy use and particulars of the subject building, but also the energy use and particulars of comparable buildings in the area. Comparing the energy use of a suburban office building in Boston with suburban office buildings in Providence without knowing the particulars is not likely to be meaningful or conclusive. This is much like the commercial real-estate appraisal profession.
Larry Spielvogel is principal of L. G. Spielvogel Inc., King of Prussia, Pa.

Do You Understand Your Energy Bill?

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:03:17 -0400

By Chuck Sathrum
It's ironic that most folks will go over their cell-phone, cable-TV and credit-card bills with a fine-tooth comb but simply shrug their shoulders and pay the electric and other utility bills. This isn't only the case for residential customers but also for large commercial and industrial enterprises. I work with many public-sector entities, such as state agencies, universities, community colleges, and local county and municipal governments, to help them examine their energy use. Most of them assign someone to be in charge of telecom budgets at the $100,000 level but often have no energy manager when their utilities costs exceed $10 million.
The bad news is we have little control over the unit cost of energy and water. However, understanding our bills provides us with a level of control. When you receive your bill, you assume the utility is correct, but you shouldn’t. Always look for billing errors. A university, for example, can have multiple campuses with more than 100 electricity accounts and several gas accounts. Generally, utility accounts are associated with meters; one meter may be connected to several buildings. A classic billing error occurs when one of the buildings associated with a meter is leased and the institution unknowingly continues to pay the electricity bill for the leased building. Another error may occur when an organization is recognized by the utility under several different names, such as North Carolina State University, North Carolina State, State University of North Carolina, etc. Other errors may arise when meters break or decimal points are placed improperly. One of our state agencies was refunded more than $280,000 when finding such errors.
Organizations also should determine whether they're on the proper rate schedule. A rate schedule is how much you pay for your electricity; it can be time or quantity dependent. It costs the utility different amounts to create electricity at different times. In summer when there are many cooling-degree days, the utility must turn on peaking units to meet demand. For example, a factory that makes semi-conductors may agree to a Time of Use Plus Demand rate schedule. The factory agrees not to use more than a certain level of power at a certain time. It still has to make semi-conductors, but if the utility tells the factory a day in advance to drop load by 1 MW between 2 and 3 p.m.--and the factory can safely reduce “non-mission-critical” loads--the utility will provide a lower rate. If the factory violates this, it will be penalized. A university we oversee saves nearly $1 million per year because it reviewed rates for a couple days and determined there was a better option.
You also have major control over your consumption. If you are a residential customer, you are the energy manager. Go to your electric utility’s Web site and learn how to read your bill. Any enterprise with more than $1 million in annual energy expenses should hire (not simply assign) an energy and water manager. A job description for this position may include the following and more:
" Develop and implement energy policy.
" Raise and maintain energy awareness throughout the organization.
" Identify opportunities for increasing energy efficiency through lighting, computers, office equipment, building envelope, HVAC, water, kitchen and vending machines.
" Reconcile, verify and approve for payment invoices submitted by metering and field-services providers (electrical, water, sewer, fuel oil, LP gas, etc.).
" Optimize the efficient energy use and cost at facilities through the review and analysis of utility consumption information and operation data.
" Manage budget for utilities and capital expenditures to achieve maximum return for investments to enhance, upgrade or develop energy-conservation programs and systems.
" Stay informed about current technologies and trends to conserve energy and reduce consumption through the design and construction of buildings and building infrastructure.
Hiring an energy manager is the best investment you can make, paying for itself many times over.
If you are looking to make immediate changes to the energy consumption of your home or business, I recommend you first contact your utility account representative and ask the utility to do an energy assessment. In some cases, the utility will have an online self-audit that asks what types of light bulbs you have in place, whether your building is well insulated, if you utilize programmable thermostats, how often you clean HVAC filters, etc. Don’t forget water. Most of the money associated with water is in heating, cooling, boiling or freezing it for your needs. Minimizing water use can dramatically impact your energy-cost savings. Between American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds; utility rebates and incentives; federal, state and local incentives; and tax credits, there has been no better time to improve energy efficiency.
Chuck Sathrum is a program manager at the North Carolina State Energy Office, Raleigh, NC.

The Eco-Logic Story

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:41:24 -0400

By Christina Koch
In Chicago, the city I call home, Mayor Daley requires that you have a pretty good reason for demolishing any building and constructing a new one in its place. I always agreed the city's converted warehouses, quaint bungalows and welcoming walk-ups were integral parts of the neighborhoods that make Chicago so diverse and interesting. Today, I struggle with that notion.
In March 2007, I bought a condo in a gut-rehabbed 1912 brick building on the city's northwest side. Now I and 14 other first-time homeowners face structural defects and code violations totaling nearly $300,000 because a developer wanted to make a fast buck. He lured us with stainless-steel appliances, granite countertops and marble bathrooms with Jacuzzi tubs. However, he neglected to reinforce the original foundation, tuckpoint the masonry, thermally break the structure, properly flash the roof penetrations, build the porch to code, etc. The condo association now is in litigation with the developer, but our attorneys have advised us that we'll never get the amount of money we need to fix the building. At some point, we'll have to drop our suit and do the repairs out of pocket. It’s frustrating to know the developer got his money while I lie awake at night thinking about the horrible investment I made that is losing value as you read this.
When I began telling my story to anyone who would listen, I encountered many similar situations across the U.S. I also heard more than once that to do justice by Chicago's old buildings would mean nobody would be able to afford to buy units in them. So is deconstructing them more sustainable? My personal situation frustrated me and I questioned the nearly decade-long career I had established, highlighting design and construction projects in trade magazines. I could turn my back on these industries, or I could help start the conversation that has the ability to fix what's wrong and evolve us toward a truly responsible, more intelligent built environment.
Thus, the idea for Eco-Logic was born. During my tenure with a nationally circulated green-building magazine, I was constantly confronted with the debate about what defines green and sustainability in terms of buildings. When my condo problems occurred, I thought “We can't get to high-performance buildings if durability already is impossible!”. What if green really means designing and constructing a building properly the first time or renovating it so it lasts for another 100 years? What does that entail? Once those plans are in place, how do we begin to think about energy efficiency, renewables and other identifiable green-building characteristics?
Eco-Logic is here to educate and debate about how to get it right the first time and how to intelligently expand into sustainability. What works? What doesn’t? What are the risks? What are your experiences? I want Eco-Logic to be your community—a place where green-building practitioners can share their successes and learn from their peers. Together, we’ll take a microscopic look at what “green” really means.
Starting this site has been a leap of faith. I know what lies ahead will be challenging, but if I didn't enjoy a challenge I would've chosen the easier path: turning my back on the design and construction community. And if you didn’t enjoy a challenge, you wouldn’t be visiting this site. I hope you choose to join me and the site’s contributors on what may be a winding, bumpy road toward true sustainability. Bookmark this site, share in the discussions, ask questions and suggest article topics. Hopefully each time you visit Eco-Logic, you'll take away something to share with your project teams. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if there’s something you'd like to learn more about or a story you’d like to share. I truly believe just one person can improve our built environment by sharing his or her story and collaborating with others. After all, that’s why I took this leap!

Living in Interesting Times

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:54:38 -0400

By Peter David Greaves, AIA, LEED AP
As the toast goes, “May you live in interesting times.” This is certainly the case in the architecture game these days. I don’t know about you, but we are doing everything we can to keep our teams together, using a combination of reduced hours, furloughs, deferred compensation and other creative ways to hold onto our valuable staff. The economic doldrums will not last forever. We need to be able to put everyone back to work when the clients start calling again.
But what do you do with the extra time? It doesn’t serve anyone to sit and fret. You have to remain productive, and you have to feed the gray cells so they keep growing. I am taking the time to do things I never seemed to have the time for when the firm was busy. Reading, studying and researching more than fill the extra time.
Before the slowdown, my practice was increasingly focused on sustainable design. There is new information available every day, in print, online and in conversation. I am trying to expand my knowledge base with the aim at becoming better at my job--maybe even getting ahead. While I am doing this I am also calling and talking with my clients, discussing what I have found and getting them excited about the new opportunities that are just around the corner.
In the new economy, sustainable design is going to be the starting point--the baseline if you will. We are going to witness profound changes in the built environment. As design professionals, we need to be even better equipped to lead, and that might take some more study.
How about you? How are you coping? Are you surviving or thriving?
Peter David Greaves is principal of Weber Thompson, Seattle.

LEED Requires Energy-consumption Data

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:29:52 -0400

Nate Gillette, AIA, LEED AP

On June 25, the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Green Building Council introduced criteria for energy reporting as a precondition for LEED for New Construction certification. The new requirement raises plenty of questions but ultimately shines a light on a hot-button issue for LEED buildings.

The energy-reporting mandate requires energy-performance data for LEED-certified buildings must be supplied to the USGBC on an annual basis or risk losing certification. There are three approved methods prescribed to meet this requirement: signing a release to the USGBC so information can be directly acquired from the utility companies, recertifying the building every two years under LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance, and self-reporting by building owners to the USGBC. The interesting thing to note is there doesn’t seem to be any ramifications for buildings that are performing below their original performance standards. The issue of anonymity of the data also has yet to be discussed by the USGBC.

Energy consumption in LEED buildings has been the elephant in the room. Trying to get actual performance data on buildings is a bit like pulling teeth. Reducing energy consumption in buildings has been a cornerstone of the LEED program since its inception. Why aren’t we talking about it? Doesn’t it make good design sense to compare successes and lessons learned with the collective whole so we can move forward and start making better high-performance buildings?

There is a major disconnect between simulated energy use and actual building performance. This was first brought to light in the 2008 study, “Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings,” conducted by the White Salmon, Wash.-based New Buildings Institute. The study reviewed performance data of 121 buildings and plotted their actual energy use compared with their energy-modeling simulations. The good news was the majority of the buildings are performing near or above their simulations. The bad news was 21 percent of the buildings surveyed consumed more energy than the modeled code allowed. Very few of the buildings were performing right at the levels simulated in the energy models.

As a participant in the NBI study, I can say I’ve seen this disconnect. The building I submitted data for happened to be my office at the time--a LEED-NC Silver project. As part of the LEED submission, the building’s energy use was simulated and determined to be 35 percent less than the ASHRAE 90.1 standard. During the course of three years, the data we collected showed the actual energy savings was closer to 47 percent. We were lucky to be on the good side of being out of whack of the simulation. However, it still stresses the point that modeling is not matching up with real-world situations.

Every day it seems there are more programs available to simulate energy use in buildings. The problem is there isn’t enough validation for the programs that exist. Very little data can be found on the accuracy of the myriad of energy-simulation programs on the market. Operator error is another contributing factor. Someone who doesn’t understand all the design parameters or doesn’t understand the occupancy schedule of a building can create a simulation vastly different than real-world conditions.

With the new requirements by the USGBC in place, it is my hope that enough information about actual building performance can be collected to be valuable to the design community. After this information is collected, meaningful discussions about validation of energy-simulation software and accuracy of the simulations can be taken to the next level.

Nate Gillette is a licensed architect and the director of sustainability and energy consulting for PM Environmental Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich.